Retrieve comprehensive details for a specific resource using its resource ID and snapshot ID, enabling in-depth analysis of system or container data.
Inspect details of a resource found by list_resources or list_children. Pass its returned resource_id together with the same snapshot_id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| resource_id | Yes | ||
| snapshot_id | Yes | Opaque retained snapshot ID; never parse it. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that by clarifying that resource_id must be paired with the same snapshot_id used to find it, which implies snapshot-bound consistency. It does not contradict 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?
One sentence with no filler, front-loading the purpose and then stating the parameter provenance. Every clause earns its place.
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-only tool, the combination of annotations, schema, and description is complete. There is no output schema, and the description's 'Inspect details' adequately signals what the tool returns without needing to enumerate return fields.
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 coverage is only 50% and resource_id has no schema description, but the description compensates by explaining that resource_id is the one returned by list_resources/list_children. It also reinforces the snapshot_id relationship, though snapshot_id itself is already described in the schema.
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 ('Inspect') and resource ('details of a resource') and ties it to the sibling tools list_resources/list_children, so an agent can distinguish it from get_system_summary and the listing tools. The relationship to returned resource_id is explicit.
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 a clear precondition: the resource must come from list_resources or list_children. It also instructs exactly what to pass (the returned resource_id together with the same snapshot_id), removing ambiguity about how the parameters relate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.