get_agentRetrieve a specific voice agent by its ID, including full voice configuration and prompt. Use this to access agent details for review or management.
Fetch one agent by id, including its full voice configuration and prompt.
Requires scope agents:read.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The record id, e.g. "6a96a3ead6e886d42462dd3e". |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by stating the required `agents:read` scope and clarifying that the full voice configuration and prompt are included in the response. No contradiction with 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?
Two concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and return content; the second adds the auth prerequisite. Every word earns its place.
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 get-by-id tool with one parameter and strong annotations, the description is complete: it states the operation, the required scope, and the key return content. No output schema exists, but the high-level return description is sufficient for this complexity.
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 fully documents the single `id` parameter with a description and example (100% coverage). The description only restates that the operation is by id, so it adds little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch one agent by id,' and further specifies the return contents ('full voice configuration and prompt'). This clearly distinguishes it from list_agents and other agent-related tools.
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 makes the intended use clear: call this when you have a single agent id and need that agent's complete configuration. It also adds a scope requirement. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is strong enough for an agent to choose correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.