Retrieve a specific child object from an IC-CAP project by its name, with optional type filtering to resolve ambiguous paths.
Get a specific child object by name with optional type filtering.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| child_name | Yes | ||
| child_type | No | Optional child-object type filter | |
| object_path | Yes | ||
| object_type | No | Specify the exact IC-CAP type when a path can name more than one object. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Get' communicates a read-only operation and 'optional type filtering' adds a behavior not already visible in the tool name. However, it does not describe what is returned, what happens if the child is missing, or how object_path and type filtering interact, leaving clear gaps.
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 description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every component ('specific', 'by name', 'optional type filtering') contributes meaning, making it appropriately concise and well structured.
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?
The tool has no annotations and no output schema, so the description must convey more about invocation expectations. It omits object_path semantics, return behavior, failure behavior, and any guidance for distinguishing this from sibling list/query tools, leaving an agent to infer important invocation details.
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?
The description maps to child_name via 'by name' and loosely to child_type/object_type via 'optional type filtering', but it never explains the required object_path parameter. Since schema description coverage is only 50%, the description partially compensates but does not fully clarify the parameter semantics.
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 states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('specific child object'), and adds 'by name' with 'optional type filtering'. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings such as object_get_child_objects, but the singular 'specific child object' gives enough differentiation to be more than a restatement.
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 phrase 'specific child object by name' implies the intended use case: retrieving one known child rather than listing children. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no pointer to alternatives like object_get_child_objects, so the guidance is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.