Retrieve analytical category details by ID from Pennylane accounting data to inspect category metadata for ledger and reporting tasks.
Récupère le détail d'une catégorie analytique par son identifiant.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Identifiant de la catégorie. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that – no auth requirements, no note on behavior for a missing id, and no extra context – so it contributes little behavioral value.
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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the resource and the keying mechanism are both stated immediately.
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 low-complexity single-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and an output schema, explaining return values is unnecessary. The description covers the essentials, though it could say a bit more to route agents between the several category-related siblings.
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 id parameter is already documented as 'Identifiant de la catégorie.' The description's 'par son identifiant' merely restates the schema, adding no format or constraint details. 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 (Récupère) and resource (catégorie analytique) keyed by identifier, so an agent can tell it apart from pennylane_list_categories. However it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like pennylane_get_category_group or pennylane_list_group_categories.
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 on when to use this versus pennylane_list_categories or pennylane_get_category_group, nor any prerequisites mentioned. The single-record-by-id usage is only implied by the phrase 'par son identifiant'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.