Retrieve a project question by ID in any state, with its answer and notes once answered. Use it to check a question's status and response.
Read one question in this project by id, in any state, with its answer and notes once answered.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| question_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.11.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that the question can be in 'any state' and returns its answer and notes once answered, which is modestly useful context about return content, but says nothing about error behavior for unknown ids or visibility rules.
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 front-loaded sentence with no waste; the verb, scope, and return-content hint are packed efficiently.
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 single-resource get with no output schema, the description covers the essential scope and indicates what comes back. It is nearly complete, missing only failure/edge-case behavior.
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?
There is one parameter (question_id) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the load. It says 'by id' and 'in this project', which tells the agent the id is project-scoped, but adds no format, range, or failure semantics beyond that.
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 (Read) and resource (question), scoped to 'one ... by id', which distinguishes it from the sibling question_list. It stops short of explicitly naming the alternative, but the singular-vs-list contrast is clear.
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 phrase 'by id' implies when to use this rather than question_list, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative. Usage is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.