jules_get_sourceFetch detailed information for a specific source using its ID. Retrieve source details needed for code review, monitoring, or task orchestration.
Get details for a specific source
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| source_id | Yes | The source ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds no behavioral information beyond 'get details.' It does not describe error behavior, return format, or any caveats about source_id resolution. It doesn't contradict annotations, but also doesn't add context beyond them.
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?
One short sentence, no fluff, front-loaded with the verb and object. It is efficient for the low complexity of this tool.
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 one required parameter, strong annotations, and high schema coverage, the description is minimally viable, but it leaves 'details' undefined and provides no guidance about what response to expect or when to prefer this tool over siblings. For a very simple getter this is adequate but not complete.
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%, so the schema already documents source_id as 'The source ID.' The description only paraphrases 'a specific source,' adding no format, source, or usage semantics beyond the schema. 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 identifies the operation ('Get details') and the resource ('a specific source'), which is enough to distinguish it from list-oriented sibling jules_list_sources. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from other get-type tools or state what 'details' include.
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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as jules_get_activity or jules_list_sources. An agent must infer from the name and the single source_id parameter that this is for individual-source lookup; the description provides no explicit when/when-not conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.