Retrieves an operation's description, required path and query parameters, and body schema so you can inspect its contract before building or executing Holded API calls.
Inspect an operation's description, required path/query parameters, and body schema.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| operation_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the payload includes parameter requirements and a body schema, but says nothing about behavior on an unknown operation_id (error vs. empty) or the response shape beyond the field list.
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 front-loaded sentence that enumerates the three things returned, with no filler. It is efficient but arguably under-specified rather than concise, since nothing else anchors the unusual meta-tool purpose.
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?
An output schema exists, so the returned fields need not be described again, and the schema is trivial (one required string). What is missing is the link from holded_search_operations to operation_id, which is the only real risk an agent faces when calling this tool.
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 0% for the single parameter, so the schema gives no meaning to operation_id. The description treats it only as 'an operation's' and never says whether the id is an API endpoint identifier, a Holded document id, or the value returned by holded_search_operations.
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?
Specific verb ('Inspect') plus resource ('an operation') and an enumeration of what is exposed: description, required path/query parameters, and body schema. It maps naturally onto the sibling holded_search_operations (find) vs this tool (inspect detail), though the ambiguous word 'operation' (API endpoint vs. business operation) is never disambiguated.
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 statement of when to use this rather than holded_search_operations or the generic holded_read/holded_write, and no prerequisites such as where an operation_id comes from. The lookup-then-inspect workflow is only inferable from the sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.