Retrieve a concise summary of an entity’s metadata, including primary key, name field, and business-relevant attributes, excluding system-redundant fields.
Get a summary of entity metadata including primary key, name field, and business-relevant attributes. System-redundant fields are excluded.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| logical_name | Yes | Logical name of the entity (e.g., account, contact) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full load; it does disclose one useful behavioral trait, that system-redundant fields are excluded from the result. Beyond that it says nothing about return shape, size limits, or errors, and the read-only nature is only implied by the verb 'Get'.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by what is included and what is excluded. No filler, though it could have spent those words on sibling differentiation instead.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Without an output schema the description must convey return contents, and it lists the main categories plus an exclusion rule, which is reasonably helpful. However, it leaves unclear how this differs from get_detailed_field_metadata or list_all_entity_definitions, which is the key ambiguity an agent faces when selecting among these metadata tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% and the single parameter already documents that it takes a logical entity name with examples. The description adds no syntax, casing, or format guidance beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ('Get a summary of entity metadata') and names the contents it returns (primary key, name field, business-relevant attributes). It does not distinguish itself from the closely related sibling 'get_detailed_field_metadata' or 'get_model_definition', so it falls short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as get_detailed_field_metadata for full field detail, and no stated preconditions. An agent must infer that this is the lightweight option versus the detailed metadata tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.