Inspect a single authorized tenant by UUID and return its readiness state, so you can verify access and tenant status before planning or mutations.
Inspect one authorized tenant and its readiness state.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tenantId | Yes | Exact Daykeeper resource UUID; access is checked by the API. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | ||
| data | No | ||
| tool | Yes | ||
| error | No | ||
| effect | Yes | ||
| schemaVersion | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds domain context ('readiness state'), but says nothing about errors, missing tenants, or access failure behavior beyond what the schema note already states.
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. Every word carries information about scope and returned state.
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 read tool with full annotations and an output schema, the description need not explain return values. It is adequate, though it leaves the content of 'readiness state' entirely to the output schema.
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%: the tenantId pattern, format, and access-check behavior are all documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the 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 (Inspect) and resource (one authorized tenant) plus an additional dimension (readiness state). The word 'one' implicitly contrasts with the sibling list tool, though no sibling is named explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied by the singular scope ('one authorized tenant'), which signals it is the single-record counterpart to a list operation. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no alternative is named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.