Retrieve a single DealDesk case by its ID. Supply a project ID when multiple projects are authorized, or omit it for single-project access.
Get one DealDesk case by id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| caseId | Yes | ||
| projectId | No | DealDesk project id. Omit when the OAuth token or API key authorizes exactly one project. Required when Connect authorized several projects. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Input schema / properties / projectId / descriptionPrevious value: -"DealDesk project id (must match API key / OAuth project)"New value: +"DealDesk project id. Omit when the OAuth token or API key authorizes exactly one project. Required when Connect authorized several projects."Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "projectId",
- "caseId"
-]New value: +[
+ "caseId"
+]v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about permissions, auth scoping, or what happens when the id does not resolve. Only the schema's projectId description hints at an authorization model.
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?
A single short sentence with zero padding and the key lookup verb front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a read-by-id operation, though the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined economy.
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-one operation with no output schema and no nested structures, the minimum viable information is present. Still missing are error behavior on an unknown id and any note that the returned payload is a full case object.
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 50%: projectId is well documented in the schema, but caseId has no description. The phrase 'by id' only restates that caseId identifies the case and adds no format, validation, or scoping detail beyond 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?
States a specific verb (Get) and resource (a DealDesk case) with a clear scope qualifier ('one ... by id'), which implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling list_cases. However, it offers no differentiation from other single-resource getters in the sibling set such as get_card, get_company, or get_contact.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus list_cases or another get_* sibling, nor any stated prerequisites or conditions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.