Retrieve a WatchGuard Cloud account by ID, with optional details like contacts, addresses, and service properties for complete account visibility.
Get a WatchGuard Cloud account by ID, optionally expanded with contacts/addresses/service properties.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fields | No | Optional extra fields to include in the response. | |
| accountId | Yes | WatchGuard Cloud account ID, e.g. ACC-1234567. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Get' conveys a read operation and optional expansion describes response scope, but it does not disclose error/not-found behavior, required permissions, or whether any fields are returned by default.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence states the core action, the lookup key, and the optional expansion behavior with no filler or repetition.
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 low-complexity get-by-ID tool with 100% schema parameter coverage, the description covers what it does and what optional data can be included. It omits response/error details, but there is no output schema and nothing else requires more context.
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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description's mention of 'contacts/addresses/service properties' loosely mirrors the fields enum but adds no new parameter semantics; baseline 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 names a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('WatchGuard Cloud account'), and selection key ('by ID'), and notes the optional expansion fields. This clearly distinguishes it from create/update/delete and list_managed_accounts siblings.
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?
No guidance is given about when to prefer this tool over list_managed_accounts or the other account/operator operations, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated. The only implied context is that a caller needs an account ID.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.