Retrieve a preview URL's details by its ID to inspect the exposed endpoint from a Tenki microVM sandbox. Get the information needed to verify or debug that specific preview URL.
Fetch a specific preview URL's details by id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| preview_url_id | Yes | The preview URL id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only safety profile is established. The description's 'Fetch' is consistent with those annotations, but it adds little behavioral context beyond them, such as error behavior or what exactly 'details' includes.
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?
The description is one short sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action, resource, and the parameter used to identify the resource, making it immediately scannable for an agent.
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?
For a simple get-by-id tool with one fully documented parameter and annotations covering safety, the description is largely sufficient. It does not describe the return fields or not-found behavior, but an agent can invoke the tool correctly with the information provided.
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?
The input schema fully documents preview_url_id as 'The preview URL id.' The description reinforces that the operation is by id but does not add extra meaning such as where the id comes from or expected format. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description uses a specific verb ('Fetch'), names the resource ('preview URL's details'), and identifies the scope ('specific ... by id'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like tenki_list_preview_urls (all preview URLs) and tenki_create_preview_url or tenki_delete_preview_url.
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?
The phrase 'specific preview URL's details by id' implies the tool is for retrieving one known preview URL rather than listing all of them. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as tenki_list_preview_urls, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.