Retrieve a single registered agent or person by name using case-insensitive lookup, so you can identify and address the right participant in message-cp.
Get one registered agent, or person, by name (case-insensitive).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It doesn't state what happens when the name matches nothing (error, null, or empty result), what fields are returned, or whether lookup is exact-match on agent vs. person records.
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 filler. Every clause (single record, agent or person, case-insensitive) contributes information.
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 tool this is close to adequate, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description should say what a successful result contains and how a failed lookup behaves. Those gaps matter for correct invocation.
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% for the single 'name' parameter, but the description adds genuine semantics beyond the bare string type: matching is case-insensitive and applies to both agent and person names. That meaningfully compensates for the empty schema.
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 registered agent, or person') and scopes it to a single lookup versus the sibling list_agents. It could be sharper about what a 'person' means in this system, but an agent can tell what it does.
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?
'Get one ... by name' implies the contrast with list_agents (bulk listing vs. single lookup), but the description never explicitly says when to prefer this over list_agents/search or what preconditions exist. Usage is only inferable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.