ProdPad MCP Server

Get ProdPad Initiative

prodpad_get_initiative

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve full details for a specific ProdPad initiative by numeric or UUID ID.

Instructions

Get full details for a specific initiative by ID.

Args:

id (string): Initiative ID (numeric or UUID)

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "prodpad_get_initiative"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	The resource ID (numeric or UUID)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only 'full details', which hints at completeness of the payload but discloses nothing about return shape, error behavior for unknown/invalid IDs, or rate limits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose sentence is front-loaded and waste-free. The 'Args:' block duplicates what the input schema already states, which is mild redundancy but harmless for a one-parameter tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple single-ID getter with full annotation coverage, the description is adequate: an agent knows it reads one initiative by identifier. The only gap is that no output schema exists and the description does not characterize what 'full details' includes.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single parameter is already documented as 'The resource ID (numeric or UUID)'. The description merely restates that, adding no new format or constraint details. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter burden.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Get full details for a specific initiative by ID.' An agent can distinguish this from prodpad_list_initiatives by the singular 'specific initiative' framing. It does not, however, explicitly name the sibling list/get-parts tools the way a 5 would.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus prodpad_list_initiatives, prodpad_get_initiative_ideas, or prodpad_search. The reader must infer that a known ID is the precondition from the parameter list alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.