placetel_get_webex_workspaceRetrieve a single Webex workspace by ID from the Placetel Web API for read-only lookups. Returns workspace details in markdown or JSON format.
Fetch a single Webex workspace. (GET /webex/workspaces/{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, so the trailing 'Read-only.' repeats structured data rather than adding to it. Beyond the redundant HTTP path, the description says nothing about not-found behavior, permissions, or what a workspace payload contains.
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 fragments, front-loaded with the purpose. The '(GET /webex/workspaces/{id})' and 'Read-only.' clauses are near-redundant but cost little.
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 single-resource read with rich annotations and a fully described schema, the minimum is met without an output schema. However, nothing tells the agent what identifier source to use or how missing workspaces surface, which a slightly longer description could cover.
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%, including an enum for response_format, so the schema carries the parameter burden and the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no meaning about the id parameter (e.g., that it is a Webex workspace id) or format selection.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Fetch a single Webex workspace'), and the word 'single' implicitly contrasts with the sibling list_webex_workspaces. It does not name the sibling or clarify what a workspace is, so it stops short of full differentiation.
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 on when to use this versus placetel_list_webex_workspaces or other Webex tools, and no prerequisites such as where the workspace id comes from. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.