Retrieve detailed field definitions for any CRM object before creating or updating records, ensuring you know exactly which fields exist and are required.
Retrieve detailed field definitions for any object. Essential before creating or updating records to know which fields exist.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| objectType | Yes | The object name or type code (e.g., 'Account', 'Contact', '1') |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly implies a read-only operation via 'Retrieve', but it does not mention potential errors, authentication needs, or response format. This is adequate for a simple fetch tool but lacks deeper behavioral context.
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 two sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the added sentence explains practical value without redundancy.
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 single-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains what the tool does and why it matters, though it does not specify the shape or richness of the returned field definitions.
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 schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter, including examples like 'Account', 'Contact', and '1'. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond reiterating that it applies to 'any object', so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 ('detailed field definitions for any object'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like get_objects and query by focusing specifically on field definitions rather than objects or record data.
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 description gives clear usage context: it is essential before creating or updating records to know which fields exist. It does not explicitly name when not to use it or list alternatives, but the stated purpose is enough to guide an agent toward appropriate use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.