Fetch all fields of an Alloy Navigator object by its OID or GUID, enabling full detail lookups for assets, tickets, or inventory records.
Get every field of a single Alloy Navigator object by its OID (e.g. a ticket number like T000002) or database record GUID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| oid | Yes | The object's OID or GUID (from alloy_list_objects). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the action ('Get') and outcome ('every field'), but does not mention error handling, read-only safety, permissions, or response format. This is acceptable for a simple read operation but leaves some gaps.
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 a single sentence that front-loads the primary action and identifier type. Every word adds value—no filler or 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 read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what to pass and what to expect in return. It lacks error-handling behavior and explicit prerequisites, but the schema reference to alloy_list_objects partially addresses the workflow. Minor gaps remain.
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 already provides 100% coverage for the 'oid' parameter with a description, but the tool description adds a concrete example (T000002) and clarifies the two accepted identifier forms (OID or database record GUID), enriching the schema's bare definition.
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 clear action ('Get'), a specific resource ('Alloy Navigator object'), and the exact scope ('every field'), while also indicating the identifier type (OID/GUID). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like alloy_list_objects (listing) and alloy_get_object_activities (activities) by focusing on the full single object.
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 establishes a clear use case: when you have an object's OID or GUID and need the complete record. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the example and the emphasis on 'single object' make the intended context clear, leaving little ambiguity about when to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.