get_entityRetrieve a SEAF object's section and all attributes using its exact ID; when the ID is unknown, use find_entities first.
Когда вызывать: известен точный ID объекта (например example.app_system.hotel_booking). Возвращает раздел и все атрибуты объекта. ID неизвестен — сначала find_entities. Дальше: get_relations для связей объекта.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ID объекта, например example.app_system.hotel_booking |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds valuable context that the tool returns the object's section and all attributes, which partially compensates for the missing output schema, though it does not describe error behavior for an invalid ID.
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 three short, front-loaded sentences: when to call, what it returns, and the fallback/next-step tools. Every sentence carries useful routing or result information with no wasted text.
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 one-parameter lookup tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: exact-ID usage, what is returned, the unknown-ID fallback, and the relation follow-up. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.
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?
There is only one parameter and its schema description coverage is 100%, already documenting it as the object ID with an example. The description reinforces that an exact ID is required but does not add syntax or format details beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 specific verb and resource: it returns a section and all attributes of an object identified by an exact ID. It explicitly distinguishes this tool from find_entities for unknown IDs and points to get_relations for relations, so an agent can tell it apart from 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?
It gives an explicit when-to-use condition: call it when the exact object ID is known. It also handles the main alternative case: if the ID is unknown, use find_entities first, and it names get_relations as the next step for relation data.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.