Retrieve a single CFPB consumer complaint by Complaint ID to access its structured fields and, when archived, the full narrative.
One complaint by its CFPB Complaint ID: all structured fields and, when archived, the full narrative.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| complaint_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add real behavioral value: it discloses what comes back (all structured fields) and a conditional return rule (full narrative only when archived). It does not cover failure behavior for an invalid/missing ID, so it falls short of full transparency.
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 action and resource, with the return detail appended where it belongs. No padding or redundant restatement of the name.
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 one-parameter read with no output schema, the description usefully sketches the return payload and its archive conditionality. It stops short of error/not-found semantics, which is the only meaningful remaining gap.
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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does by naming the identifier domain ('CFPB Complaint ID') rather than leaving the bare integer unexplained. A single self-evident required key limits how much more could be said.
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 and resource ('get one complaint') plus the lookup key ('by its CFPB Complaint ID'), so the agent knows this is a single-record fetch rather than a search. It does not name a sibling (e.g., search_narratives) to draw the boundary explicitly, but the singular-by-ID framing is unambiguous.
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: the 'by its CFPB Complaint ID' phrasing signals the precondition (you must already have an ID), which distinguishes it from search tools. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no mention of the alternative to pick when you lack an ID.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.