get_inspectionRetrieve a single Contractor Foreman inspection by inspection_id to view its type, project, date, result, agency, inspector, and notes.
One inspection with type, project, date, result, agency, inspector and notes.
Reads one Contractor Foreman inspection by inspection_id, with the same fields as list_inspections.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| inspection_id | Yes | inspection_id from list_inspections. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds the field list returned and the source system, which is useful since there is no output schema, but it omits behavior on a missing ID or permission errors.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the field inventory, with no filler. The trailing clause 'with the same fields as list_inspections' slightly repeats the opening list.
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 with no output schema, enumerating the returned fields gives the agent what it needs to decide whether to call or list first. Only failure-mode behavior is left out.
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 100% and the single parameter is already documented as 'inspection_id from list_inspections.' The description only restates that the read is keyed by inspection_id, adding no new syntax or format detail.
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 ('Reads one Contractor Foreman inspection by inspection_id') and enumerates the returned fields. It is clearly distinguishable from list_inspections, though it never names sibling tools explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied: the reference to inspection_id implies a lookup-after-list workflow, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or statement of what to do if the ID is unknown or invalid.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.