Retrieve a single Brivo custom field by ID to inspect its configuration and definition.
Retrieve a single Brivo custom field by id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| customFieldId | Yes | The Brivo custom field id, e.g. from Custom Field: List_custom_fields. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, the safety profile is already declared, but the description adds nothing beyond it: no error behavior for a missing/invalid id, no mention of permissions, and no indication of what the returned record looks like. It essentially restates a read operation the annotations already characterize.
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 short sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing is padded or redundant.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description would need to carry the burden of describing the returned custom field object, and it does not. For a simple single-record retrieval the purpose is complete, but the return shape is left entirely unspecified.
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% and there is a single required parameter, so the schema fully documents customFieldId including its provenance. The description adds no format or type guidance beyond what the schema provides, so 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 (Retrieve) and resource (a single Brivo custom field) plus the lookup key (by id), which cleanly separates it from the sibling List_custom_fields. It does not explicitly name that sibling, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.
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 statement, but the single-record-by-id framing makes the intended usage against List_custom_fields reasonably inferable. Nothing tells the agent what to do if the id is unknown or whether the list tool is the required discovery path.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.