Retrieve details for a specific Slack List item using its list ID and item ID. Returns item information for automation and workflows.
Get details for a single Slack List item. Requires lists:read scope.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| item_id | Yes | Item ID | |
| list_id | Yes | List ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.8Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Get details' clearly signals a read-only, side-effect-free operation, and the required scope is stated. It does not mention error behavior or return format, but this is a simple getter where those omissions are minor.
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?
Two sentences with no filler: the core action is stated first, followed by the essential auth prerequisite. Every word contributes to understanding what the tool does and how to call it.
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 read operation with two required IDs, the description and schema together are sufficient for correct invocation. The only notable gap is not explicitly pointing to list_list_items as the plural alternative, but this is a minor weakness.
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?
The input schema already describes both parameters with 100% coverage, albeit tersely as 'Item ID' and 'List ID'. The description adds no extra meaning about ID formats, relationships, or how the parameters are used, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb ('Get details') and resource ('single Slack List item'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also distinguishes this from sibling list-, create-, update-, and delete-item tools without ambiguity.
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?
It clearly provides the required scope ('Requires lists:read scope') and the word 'single' implies use for one item rather than listing all items. However, it never explicitly names list_list_items as the alternative for bulk retrieval, so usage guidance is implied rather than direct.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.