advisor__get_rule_from_node_idFind Advisor Recommendations linked to a Knowledge Base article or solution ID.
Find Advisor Recommendations linked to a Knowledge Base article or solution ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| node_id | Yes | Knowledge base article or solution node ID. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.25Input schema / properties / node_id / descriptionPrevious value: -"Node ID of the knowledge base article or solution. Example: 123456"New value: +"Knowledge base article or solution node ID."Output schema / properties / result / anyOfPrevious value: -[
- {
- "additionalProperties": true,
- "type": "object"
- },
- {
- "items": {
- "type": "string"
- },
- "type": "array"
- },
- {
- "type": "string"
- }
-]New value: +[
+ {
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+]v0.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, covering the full safety profile. The description adds nothing beyond confirming it is a lookup, so with annotations doing the work a 3 is appropriate.
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 no filler; the core action and key are stated immediately. It is efficient, though it could carry a bit more routing detail without bloat.
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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the single param is documented. However, the description omits sibling routing and the semantics of the dual-purpose node_id, leaving minor gaps for an agent choosing among the advisor tools.
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 coverage is 100% and the single node_id parameter is fully described. The description's mention of 'article or solution ID' largely repeats the schema wording rather than adding new syntax or format guidance, so 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 (Find) and resource (Advisor Recommendations) plus the linkage key (Knowledge Base article or solution ID). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_rule_by_text_search, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.
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 implies when to use it (when you have a KB article/solution node ID) but offers no explicit when-not guidance or named alternatives such as get_rule_by_text_search for non-ID lookups. Usage must be inferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.