Fetch one Brivo schedule by ID to inspect access-control time windows and linked sites.
Retrieve a single Brivo schedule by id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scheduleId | Yes | The Brivo schedule id, e.g. from Schedule: List_schedules. |
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, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing further – no error behavior for a missing id, no auth/permission requirements, no note that the resource is fetched live. With annotations doing the work, this is thin.
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?
One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero filler. It is appropriately sized for a trivial single-resource read, though it is almost too terse to add value.
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 schema coverage and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description covers what's needed to invoke it. Absence of return-value detail is acceptable given no output schema and the obvious 'returns a schedule' semantics.
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 the single parameter is documented in the schema itself (including the hint to get it from List_schedules). The description's 'by id' only restates the schema, 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?
The description states a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('a single Brivo schedule'), and the 'single ... by id' phrasing distinguishes it from the sibling List_schedules. It's clear without opening the schema, though it doesn't explicitly name the alternative.
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: 'a single schedule by id' contrasts with listing, but the description never states when to prefer this over List_schedules or what to do if the id is unknown. No explicit when/when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.