GetV1InstancesCustomersRfiRetrieves the open pending RFI for a customer to identify outstanding requests; returns null if none exist.
Returns the open (pending) RFI for this customer, or null if the customer has no pending RFI.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| customer_id | Yes | Customer ID | |
| instance_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.9.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world. The description adds genuine behavioral content beyond them: only the open (pending) RFI is returned, not resolved ones, and a null result is the documented no-RFI case rather than an error.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and the null-result caveat is appended without waste. Nothing could be removed without losing information.
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, the description must carry the return contract; it says an RFI (or null) comes back but not what an RFI contains or whether more than one can be pending. Adequate to call correctly, thin for interpreting the result.
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 50% — customer_id is documented, instance_id is not — and the description adds no format or meaning for either parameter. It neither compensates for the gap nor adds value beyond the schema.
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?
States a specific verb (returns), resource (the open/pending RFI), and scope (for this customer), which separates it from the sibling GetV1InstancesRfi (instance-level) and PostV1InstancesCustomersRfi (creation). It does not name those siblings explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
Usage is only implied by the read semantics: an agent can infer this is the lookup to call when checking whether a customer has an outstanding RFI. There are no explicit when-to-use/when-not conditions and no alternative named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.