Retrieve a specific segmentation by its ID from Accelo CRM, with optional fields to include additional data.
Get a single segmentation by ID.
Args: id: Segmentation ID fields: Additional fields to return
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| fields | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only lookup, but does not disclose permissions, error behavior, rate limits, or how the fields parameter affects the response.
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?
Two-sentence purpose plus a compact Args block; front-loaded and no filler. Every line contributes to the minimal parameter documentation.
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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too sparse. It does not explain return shape, field formatting, failure modes, or usage alternatives.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It identifies both parameters and gives a high-level role for each ('Segmentation ID', 'Additional fields to return'), but the syntax and accepted values for 'fields' remain unspecified.
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 'Get' and resource 'segmentation' with the scope 'single by ID'. This distinguishes it from list/count siblings, but 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?
No when-to-use guidance or alternatives are provided. The 'by ID' phrasing implies an ID is required, but the description does not say when to call this versus accelo_list_segmentations or accelo_count_segmentations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.