Retrieve the exact schema, safety category, and required executor for an action to understand its structure and requirements.
Get the exact schema, safety category, and required executor for one discovered Surfmeter action.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to restate safety. The description adds that the tool returns schema, safety category, and executor, but this is more about output content than behavioral traits. No contradiction exists between description and 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?
A single, tightly worded sentence with no filler or redundancy. The key outcome is front-loaded, and every phrase 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 one-parameter metadata lookup, the description plus annotations cover the essential context: it is a safe, read-only, idempotent operation returning specific details. The description does not explicitly say the action will not be executed, but the readOnlyHint and the focus on metadata make that clear.
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%, and the schema only says action_id is a non-empty string. The description compensates by explaining that action_id identifies 'one discovered Surfmeter action,' which adds meaning beyond the raw parameter name and type. It does not specify format or source, but for a single opaque identifier this is sufficient.
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 names a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource (one discovered Surfmeter action), and the exact information returned: schema, safety category, and required executor. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like search_actions (discovery) and execute_* tools (execution).
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 phrase 'one discovered Surfmeter action' establishes that this tool is for actions already found, implying a workflow of discover-then-describe-before-execute. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended usage context is clear from the wording.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.