Retrieve complete details for a specific demand, including its subtasks and assignees. Use this to get a full view of a demand's structure and responsible parties.
Consulta os detalhes completos de uma demanda específica, incluindo suas subtarefas e responsáveis.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| demanda_id | Yes | ID da demanda para consultar detalhes e subtarefas. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions inclusive details (subtarefas e responsáveis) but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, performance, or side effects. For a read-like operation, it lacks explicit safety confirmation.
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?
Single sentence, clear and front-loaded with the purpose. No wasted words, though it could arguably mention alternatives for conciseness's sake.
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?
Tool is moderately simple (1 parameter, no output schema). Description covers the purpose and inclusion of subtasks, but without annotations or additional behavioral info, completeness is adequate but not rich. No mention of return format or error conditions, but simple enough.
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 100%, so the schema already explains the 'demanda_id' parameter. The description repeats that it consults a specific demand but adds no extra semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 applies.
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 clearly states that the tool retrieves full details of a specific demand, including subtasks and those responsible. It uses a specific verb ('consulta') and resource ('demanda específica'), and distinguishes from siblings like 'listar_demandas_ativas' by focusing on a single item.
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 usage for viewing details of one demand, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'listar_demandas_ativas' (for listing) or 'obter_contexto_projeto' (for project context). No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.