Retrieve detailed information about a single audit engagement using organization and engagement IDs. Access is limited to assigned auditors or viewers.
Get one audit engagement's detail (read — viewer role, or an auditor assigned to this engagement).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| org_id | Yes | Organization UUID — obtain from scf_list_organizations | |
| engagement_id | Yes | Audit engagement UUID — obtain from scf_list_engagements |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'read' label aligns with that. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying role-based access restrictions (viewer or assigned auditor), which is not present in the annotations or schema. No contradiction found.
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 a single sentence with no filler. The core action and resource are front-loaded, and the role restriction is compactly appended in parentheses. Every word earns its place.
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 two-parameter read-only getter with no output schema, the description covers purpose, resource, and authorization context. It does not describe return shape, but the absence of an output schema lowers that burden. Minor gap: it doesn't mention sibling tools that return different engagement-related views, but the tool is simple enough that this is not a major omission.
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 both parameters already have descriptive text ('Organization UUID — obtain from scf_list_organizations', 'Audit engagement UUID — obtain from scf_list_engagements'). The tool description itself adds no parameter-level detail, so the schema carries the burden; baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get one audit engagement's detail.' It clearly identifies the singular engagement focus and includes role context. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like scf_get_engagement_scope or scf_get_engagement_presentation, but 'detail' is reasonably distinct from those.
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 description gives access/role context ('read — viewer role, or an auditor assigned to this engagement') which implies when the tool is usable, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives such as scf_list_engagements, scf_get_engagement_scope, or scf_get_engagement_presentation. Usage context is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.