Retrieve a backup agent's full configuration—schedule, retention, volumes, alerts, and connection info—without exposing passphrase values.
Get a single agent by ID - backup schedule, retention policy, volumes, alert configs, and connection info. If the agent has user-managed passphrases, only their names/IDs are returned, never the passphrase value itself.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_id | Yes | Agent ID. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the important behavioral trait of redacting passphrase values (only names/IDs returned), which is critical for security and not shown in annotations. It also lists the scope of returned data. No annotations exist to contradict, so the description carries the behavioral burden and does so effectively.
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 concise, with one sentence covering purpose and returned data, and a second sentence adding the security caveat. It is front-loaded with purpose before the caveat, and every sentence earns its place.
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?
Given the tool has only one parameter and no output schema, the description provides adequate context for correct invocation. It lists what data to expect and the passphrase redaction behavior, making it complete enough for an agent.
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 coverage is 100% with agent_id described as 'Agent ID.' The description does not add extra meaning to the parameter, but baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema fully defines it. No need for additional compensation.
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 clearly states get a single agent by ID and lists the specific data returned including backup schedule, retention policy, volumes, alert configs, and connection info, making it distinct from list_agents and other get_* siblings. The tool name and description align well with the action and resource.
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 implies this is for retrieving detailed single-agent info, and the sibling list_agents suggests when to use a list instead. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like slide_list_agents for bulk retrieval.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.