Vapi MCP Server

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

get_tool

Retrieve details for a specific Vapi tool by its UUID to inspect configuration and metadata before updating or using it.

Instructions

Gets details of a specific tool

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "toolId": "<toolId>"
    },
    "name": "get_tool"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`toolId`	Yes	ID of the tool to get

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedv0.1.0Nov 7, 2026

changedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Previous value: -falseNew value: +{}
```
addedInput schema / properties / toolId / format
```
Added value: +"uuid"
```

addedInput schema / properties / toolId / pattern

Added value: +"^([0-9a-fA-F]{8}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[1-8][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[89abAB][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[0-9a-fA-F]{12}|00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000|ffffffff-ffff-ffff-ffff-ffffffffffff)$"

Addedv1.0.0Jan 3, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says nothing about what fields the returned details include, whether the lookup is read-only, or what happens for an invalid or nonexistent toolId — all important for a lookup tool with zero annotation coverage.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single efficient sentence with no filler and the resource scoping front-loaded. Its brevity is appropriate for a one-parameter lookup, though it borders on under-specification.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple one-parameter lookup with complete schema coverage, the description covers the minimum: what it fetches and by what key. Because there is no output schema, the description should have characterized the returned "details," which it does not, leaving a meaningful gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with toolId fully documented as a UUID with a pattern, so the description need not compensate. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb and resource ("Gets details of a specific tool"), so the basic operation is identifiable. However, "details" is vague and never differentiates it from siblings such as list_tools, create_tool, update_tool, or get_api_schema, leaving the agent to infer what the returned details actually are.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_tools or get_api_schema, and no mention of prerequisites or lookup workflow. The only implied usage is that an agent must already have a toolId, which comes from the schema rather than the description.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.