Retrieve detailed information for a specific vendor by ID, including optional related data. Use it to view vendor records for inventory, purchasing, or contact management.
Get detailed information about a specific vendor
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| include | No | Related data to include | |
| vendorId | Yes | The vendor ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.0-alpha.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get' implies a read, but there is no disclosure of permissions, error behavior for unknown IDs, or what 'detailed information' actually contains.
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 front-loaded sentence with no waste. It is efficient, though the brevity is partly the result of under-specification rather than disciplined editing.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the agent must guess the return shape. Critically, the 'include' parameter accepts arbitrary strings but neither the schema nor the description lists valid values, so an agent cannot use it correctly.
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 both parameters are documented structurally, making 3 the baseline. The description adds nothing about the 'include' array or vendorId format, but it is not required to.
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?
Clear verb ('Get') plus resource ('vendor') with a stated scope ('a specific vendor', i.e. single-item lookup). It reads distinctly from list_vendors and upsert_vendor, though it never explicitly names them.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus list_vendors or how to obtain a vendorId. The tool's role is inferable from the name but the description supplies no usage conditions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.