Retrieve an Apache NiFi parameter context, including its parameters and bound process groups, by context ID to inspect configuration before automating flows.
One parameter context with its parameters and bound process groups.
Backed by GET /parameter-contexts/{id}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| context_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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful scope by stating it returns parameters and bound process groups and mentions the backing GET endpoint, but it does not describe auth needs, pagination, or other behavioral traits.
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 only two sentences, front-loads the tool's purpose, and avoids waste. The second sentence about the backing endpoint is minor but informative context.
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 single-parameter getter, an output schema exists and annotations cover safety. The description states the returned content, but the context_id parameter remains unexplained and no usage guidance is provided, leaving moderate gaps.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented context_id parameter. It does not explain what context_id is, its format, or where to obtain it, leaving the single required parameter without descriptive support.
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 resource and scope: one parameter context with its parameters and bound process groups. The singular 'one' distinguishes it from the sibling list_parameter_contexts, though no sibling is named explicitly.
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 when-to-use guidance is given. The description does not explain when to choose this tool over nifi_list_parameter_contexts or other getters, leaving usage to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.