get_appointmentFetch a single appointment by ID to access its details. Use this operation when you need to view or verify a specific appointment's information.
Fetch one appointment by id.
Requires scope appointments: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 declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description's main behavioral addition is the required 'appointments:read' scope. This is useful context beyond the annotations, though it does not discuss 404 behavior or response format.
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 two short sentences with the core behavior front-loaded. The scope requirement is stated concisely, and there is no redundant or unnecessary text.
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 read operation, the description plus annotations provide the essential context: what to fetch, the required scope, and the safe/idempotent nature of the call. It does not describe the return payload, but that is not critical for a straightforward get-by-id 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 100%, and the id parameter already has a clear schema description with an example. The tool description adds little beyond 'by id', so the baseline of 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 states a specific action ('Fetch one appointment by id') with a clear resource and retrieval method. The word 'one' and 'by id' distinguish it from list_appointments and other collection-fetching siblings.
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 implies when to use the tool: when a specific appointment ID is known and a single record is needed. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like list_appointments for fetching multiple appointments, nor does it provide exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.