Retrieve a target list by its ID to inspect all associated targets.
Retrieve one target list by ID, including its targets (GET /v2/target-lists/{id}).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Target list ID (required) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool returns the list 'including its targets', which is useful but not a behavioral disclosure beyond what the annotations imply. It does not mention any side effects, error conditions, or pagination, but for a read-only retrieval this is acceptable. It adds some value beyond 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?
The description is a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the verb and resource. It includes the API endpoint for reference, which is helpful without being verbose. Every word earns its place, and there is no fluff.
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 retrieval tool with one parameter, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the description is complete. It states what it does, what it returns, and the parameter is fully documented. There are no missing pieces an agent would need to call it correctly.
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?
The input schema already documents the only parameter (id) with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any extra semantics about the parameter format (e.g., UUID vs. string) or constraints beyond what the schema states. It simply reiterates the purpose. No additional value is provided.
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 ('Retrieve'), a precise resource ('one target list by ID'), and clarifies the returned content ('including its targets'). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like get_target_lists (plural) and search_target_lists by implying single-ID retrieval. This is unambiguous and specific.
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 description clearly implies when to use it: when you have a specific target list ID and want its details. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is clear enough that an agent can infer it is for single-list retrieval rather than listing or searching. No explicit exclusions are given, but the context is strong.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.