Retrieve a Grok Bot cloud agent by ID with its todos, sessions, and runtime capabilities, so you can inspect status and available actions before assigning tasks.
Get one agent plus todos, sessions, and runtime capabilities.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_id | Yes | Agent id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint=true annotation already establishes this is a safe read. The description adds useful context by disclosing that the response bundles related todo, session, and capability data, but says nothing about authorization requirements, rate limits, or behavior for unknown/invalid agent ids.
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?
A single short sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, then tacks on the payload contents. No filler or redundancy.
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?
With no output schema, the description partially compensates by naming what is returned (todos, sessions, runtime capabilities), which is the main thing an agent needs to know. It stops short of describing error behavior or the shape of those sub-objects.
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% (agent_id is documented), so the schema carries parameter meaning and the baseline is 3. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema already provides.
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 (Get) and resource (one agent) and enumerates the payload (todos, sessions, runtime capabilities), which distinguishes it from grokbot_list_agents and the mutating create/update/delete siblings. It does not name a sibling explicitly, keeping it just under 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 guidance on when to call this versus grokbot_list_agents or grokbot_status, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The agent must infer usage from the verb alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.