get_agentRetrieve the full specification for one sales agent by number, slug, or name, so you can review its prompt and apply it to lead-generation tasks.
Get the full spec of one agent by number (1-100), slug or name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent | Yes | Agent number, slug or name, e.g. '26' or 'cold-email-copywriter' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description contributes the identifier range (1-100) and accepted formats, but says nothing about failure behavior for an unknown agent or what 'full spec' comprises.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the key noun phrase and the identifier forms arrive immediately. It is efficient, though it spends words on the range where a clause on return shape might have been more valuable.
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 one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and complete annotations, the definition covers what an agent needs to invoke it correctly. The only gap is the unspecified shape of the returned 'full spec', which is minor given there is no output schema to contradict.
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% and the schema example already shows '26' and 'cold-email-copywriter', so the description is largely restating the parameter. It does add the numeric bound 1-100, which the schema omits, but that is marginal added meaning.
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 ('full spec of one agent') and enumerates the accepted identifier forms (number, slug, name), which clearly separates it from list_agents and search_agents. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so a 4 rather than a 5.
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 single-agent framing implies you use this when you already have a concrete identifier, but the description never says when to prefer this over search_agents or list_agents, nor what to do if the identifier is unknown. Usage is inferable, not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.