Retrieve complete Capture One variant data for a given ID, including source image, EXIF, adjustments, crop, IPTC, keywords, layers, and output files.
Everything scriptable about one variant: source image and EXIF, all adjustment values, crop, lens correction, IPTC metadata, keywords, layers, and previously written output files.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Variant id, as returned by co_list_variants |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description consistently implies a read-only getter, matching readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. It adds substantial specificity about return contents (EXIF, IPTC metadata, layers, output files) which is useful beyond the generic annotations. No contradiction.
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 sentence beginning with 'Everything scriptable' conveys the full scope in eleven words. No wasted words; the enumerations are informative without bloat.
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 getter with one well-specified parameter and no output schema, this supplies the full return scope. It is slightly incomplete in not mentioning error behavior or that some listed fields could be empty, but those are minor given annotations cover safety.
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 single parameter id is already described in the schema as 'Variant id, as returned by co_list_variants' – clear provenance and type. The description doesn't add parameter detail, but with 100% schema coverage, credit is not required beyond the existing description.
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 identifies the resource (one variant) and the action (retrieve everything scriptable), followed by an explicit list of contents such as source image, EXIF, adjustments, layers, and output files. This separates it unambiguously from siblings like co_list_variants and co_get_document. Though it does not name a sibling, the scope of 'everything scriptable about one variant' is precise and self-differentiating.
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 use when you need comprehensive details of a single variant, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like co_list_variants or co_get_document, nor does it mention preconditions. It lacks routing guidance like 'use co_list_variants first to obtain IDs.' It is adequate but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.