placetel_get_routing_planRetrieve a Placetel routing plan by ID to inspect its configuration and routing rules. Read-only; supports markdown or JSON output.
Get a routing plan. (GET /routing_plans/{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, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'Read-only' is a restatement rather than added value. It says nothing about failure behavior (e.g., unknown id), permissions, or what a returned routing plan contains, which is the context that would actually help beyond the annotations.
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?
Three short fragments, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no filler. The endpoint parenthetical is of marginal utility but does serve as a compact REST-semantics hint, so the terseness reads as efficient rather than padded.
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 two-parameter read with full schema coverage and complete annotations, the essentials are covered. Because there is no output schema, the description could have said what a routing plan object contains, and it omits any mention of the response_format choice's effect, leaving a modest gap.
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%, with both the id path parameter and the response_format enum fully documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no semantics about id format or when to prefer json over markdown output.
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 verb and resource ('Get a routing plan') and pins it to a concrete endpoint (GET /routing_plans/{id}), so there is no ambiguity about what is retrieved. It does not, however, distinguish this from close siblings such as placetel_list_routing_plans, placetel_get_routing, or placetel_simulate_routing_plan, leaving the agent to infer the boundary from names alone.
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 only usage signal is 'Read-only', which describes the operation's nature rather than when to choose it. There is no statement of when to use this versus listing routing plans, fetching a routing, or simulating a routing plan, and no mention of prerequisites such as needing a valid plan id.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.