get_rfiRetrieve a single Contractor Foreman RFI by rfi_id to view its question, dates, answer, and status, helping you inspect request details and track resolution status.
One RFI with its question, dates, answer and status.
Reads one Contractor Foreman RFI by rfi_id, with the same fields as list_rfis.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rfi_id | Yes | rfi_id from list_rfis. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description's added value is listing which fields come back and noting parity with list_rfis; it says nothing about what happens on an unknown rfi_id (error vs empty) or about auth scope.
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 lines, zero waste, with the resource and returned fields front-loaded. The opening line is a verbless fragment, which slightly blunts the action framing but keeps it compact.
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 idempotent read with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what comes back and where the id originates. Only edge-case behavior (invalid id, missing RFI) is left unaddressed, which is a minor gap given the rich annotation set.
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 a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already says 'rfi_id from list_rfis.' The description repeats that the lookup is by rfi_id but adds no type, format, or provenance detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 RFI by rfi_id') and enumerates the fields returned (question, dates, answer, status). It implicitly separates itself from the plural list_rfis and the create_rfi write path, though it never names those siblings directly as alternatives.
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 implied: fetch a single RFI when you already have an rfi_id, vs list_rfis for enumeration. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or naming of the alternative tool, so the agent must infer the routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.