Retrieve a single LibreDesk macro by ID, including its message content and actions, so support agents can inspect the exact response and workflow before using or updating it.
Get Macro A single macro with its message content and its actions. Any authenticated agent; the macro's visibility is not checked on this route. GET /api/v1/macros/{id} Tags: Macros
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Macro ID (path parameter) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does add meaningful context: any authenticated agent may call it and the macro's visibility is NOT checked on this route, which is a real security-relevant disclosure the schema cannot convey. It also states the response includes message content and actions; it omits not-found/error behavior and any pagination or rate-limit notes.
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 content is short, but it is padded with API-doc boilerplate — a redundant title line 'Get Macro', the raw route, and 'Tags: Macros' — none of which help an agent select or invoke the tool. The most valuable sentence (visibility not checked) is buried after the title.
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 one-parameter single-record getter with no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns (message content and actions) and the auth/visibility caveat, which is enough to call it correctly. Only error behavior on an unknown ID is left unstated, a minor gap for a tool of this complexity.
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?
There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Macro ID (path parameter)'), so the schema already carries everything needed. The description's GET /api/v1/macros/{id} merely restates that id is a path segment, adding no new meaning such as ID format or source.
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 names a specific verb and resource ('Get Macro ... A single macro') and clarifies the payload ('its message content and its actions'), which distinguishes it from the list-style sibling get_macros. It stops short of naming the sibling explicitly, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.
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?
There is no explicit 'use this when...' or comparison to alternatives such as get_macros or get_macros_compact. Usage is only implied by the wording 'A single macro' plus the REST path with an {id} path parameter, which tells an agent this is a by-ID lookup.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.