Retrieve a single Brivo application by its ID to inspect application details from read-only access-control data.
Retrieve a single Brivo application by id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| applicationId | Yes | The Brivo application id, e.g. from Application: List_applications. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds no further behavioral context such as error handling, not-found behavior, or return format. With annotations covering safety, the description provides no additional transparency.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource. No wasted words; appropriately sized for a simple get tool.
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 simple get-by-id tool with a fully documented parameter and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete. It does not state what an application is or what is returned, but no output schema exists and the tool name implies the return. Minor gap only.
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% for the single parameter, and the description adds only 'by id', which is already implied by the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema fully documents parameters.
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 'Retrieve' and resource 'Brivo application', with scope 'single ... by id'. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling Application: List_applications in the description itself, though the parameter description references it as the source of ids.
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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Usage is implied by 'by id' – call when you have an application id. The parameter description points to List_applications as the id source, but the description itself names no alternatives or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.