NeoCoder Neo4j AI Workflow

get_tool_proposal

Retrieve a specific tool proposal by ID to access its complete details and specifications.

Instructions

Get a specific tool proposal by ID.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "get_tool_proposal"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	ID of the tool proposal to retrieve

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.1Aug 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Get', which implies a read operation but does not state whether it is read-only, what happens if the ID does not exist, or any permission requirements. This lacks transparency for a tool that could fail or have side effects.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word earns its place, and there is no unnecessary detail or repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally complete. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this versus list_tool_proposals or how to handle potential errors. It does not fully contextualize the tool within its sibling group.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with the 'id' parameter fully described. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, only repeating that it retrieves by ID. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function: retrieving a specific tool proposal by its ID. The verb 'Get' and resource 'tool proposal' are specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from list_tool_proposals by specifying 'by ID', so the agent can tell this is for single-item retrieval.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage when you have a specific proposal ID, contrasting with listing operations. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusion or comparison with sibling tools like list_tool_proposals.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.