placetel_get_provisioningRetrieves a specific phone provisioning record by ID from the Placetel Web API, returning details in markdown or JSON for review.
Retrieve a phone provisionings. (GET /provisionings/{id}) Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Path parameter id. | |
| response_format | No | Output format: 'markdown' (human-readable, default) or 'json' (machine-readable). | markdown |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description merely restates "Read-only", adding no information the agent doesn't already have structurally. It says nothing about what a provisioning record contains, what a missing/invalid ID returns (404), or any auth/scope requirement — for a GET-by-ID tool with no output schema, that is the useful context that is missing.
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?
Two short, front-loaded fragments with the resource and endpoint first; the agent gets the essentials immediately. The trailing "Read-only." is pure duplication of readOnlyHint and is the only wasted content.
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 simple read-by-ID tool with full schema coverage and four annotations, the core need-to-call information is present. But with no output schema, the description never indicates what a provisioning object represents or returns, leaving the agent unable to judge whether the result answers its question.
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 `id` (path parameter) and `response_format` (markdown/json enum, default markdown). The description adds no meaning beyond that, which is acceptable but earns only the baseline.
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 uses a specific verb ("Retrieve") plus the resource ("phone provisioning") and pins the exact endpoint (GET /provisionings/{id}), which clearly distinguishes it from placetel_list_provisionings, create, update and delete. The only defect is the ungrammatical phrasing ("a phone provisionings"), which slightly muddies an otherwise unambiguous purpose.
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?
Usage is only implied: the `{id}` path and the singular resource signal 'fetch one item by ID', so an agent can infer it is not the list call and not a mutation. However, nothing states when to prefer this over listing provisionings or what to do if the ID is unknown, and no prerequisites are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.