Read a refresh result by plugin setting ID and job ID to verify completion or retrieve output.
Read the result of a refresh TRMNL GET /api/plugin_settings/{plugin_setting_id}/refreshes/{id}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| profile | No | Configured profile name; defaults to default. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds only the HTTP endpoint and does not disclose behavioral details like error handling, rate limits, or output format, so it provides minimal extra transparency.
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 two lines, front-loading the purpose and then the endpoint. It contains no redundant or filler information, making it efficiently concise.
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?
The description identifies the operation and endpoint but lacks details about what the refresh result contains or how to interpret it, which is important given there is no output schema. It is adequate but not fully complete for an agent to use without additional context.
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 describes all leaf parameters (id, plugin_setting_id, profile), covering the essential semantics. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, but given the schema's coverage, a 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 states a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('the result of a refresh') and includes the HTTP endpoint, making the purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like trmnl_start_refresh or explain its role in the refresh workflow.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as whether it should be called after trmnl_start_refresh or how to handle polling. The description only states what it does, leaving usage context to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.