Fetch a specified relationship with its foreign and primary key source objects from a project version.
Get one relationship with its foreign and primary key source objects.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| language | No | ru | |
| use_cache | No | ||
| project_id | Yes | DataForge project id | |
| version_id | Yes | Project version id | |
| relationship_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds that the result includes foreign and primary key source objects, but says nothing about return format, errors, caching behavior, or language sensitivity.
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 entire description is one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action and the key output scope efficiently.
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 no output schema and low parameter coverage, the description gives only a surface-level idea of what is returnedteachers. It is adequate for a safe read operation but insufficient for an agent to understand optional parameters or the exact shape of the response.
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 only 40%, and the description does not compensate for the undocumented parameters. It only implicitly references relationship_id via 'one relationship' and provides no meaning for language or use_cache, and relationship_id itself lacks a schema description.
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 ('Get'), a singular resource ('one relationship'), and enriches it by stating the returned data includes foreign and primary key source objects. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like df_list_relationships and df_delete_relationship.
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 singular 'one relationship' implies use with a specific relationship_id, but the description never explicitly states when to choose this over df_list_relationships or other relationship-related tools. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.