Fetch a specific email layout by its permalink and return it along with its associated wrappers for reuse or inspection.
Retrieve one layout by permalink, including its wrappers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| permalink | Yes | Layout permalink |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true (safe read) and openWorldHint=true (may return unknown fields). The description adds that wrappers are included, which is useful. However, it does not disclose behavior such as what happens if the permalink is not found (error vs null), or any pagination or response structure details. Given the annotations provide the safety profile, the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond that.
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?
The description is one sentence, perfectly concise, with the core action and key identifier upfront. It includes the important detail about wrappers without any fluff. Every word earns its place.
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 get-by-ID tool with one parameter, full schema coverage, and annotations declaring read-only and open-world behavior, the description covers the essential purpose and inclusion of wrappers. It lacks explicit mention of return value format, but no output schema is provided and the openWorldHint suggests unknown fields are possible Ruby Marshalling. Given the low complexitytools, a 3 is adequate.
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 schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'permalink', with a clear description 'Layout permalink'. The description's mention of 'by permalink' adds negligible meaning beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 states the action (retrieve), the resource (layout), the unique identifier (permalink), and the added detail that wrappers are included. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_layouts, create_layout, update_layout, and delete_layout, providing a clear specific purpose.
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 this is for retrieving a single layout when the permalink is known, but it does not explicitly state when to use this instead of list_layouts or other retrieval tools. Since the tool is self-explanatory for retrieval but lacks explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance, a score of 3 is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.