Retrieve details of a specific data connection by its ID. Use this to inspect connection properties and verify configuration in your Datanika pipeline.
Get details of a specific connection by ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| connection_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get details' suggests a read operation, but it does not state whether the call is safe/idempotent, what error behaviors exist, or what level of detail is returned beyond the output schema.
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 a single focused sentence with no filler and the key operation is stated up front. Every word contributes to the meaning.
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 getter with one required integer parameter and an output schema, the description provides the minimum viable call guidance. However, it does not disambiguate against several closely related connection tools, so an agent may not know if this is the right tool for 'details' versus introspect_connection or preview_connection.
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%, so the description must compensate for the parameter docs. It adds only 'by ID,' which essentially restates the parameter name connection_id and does not explain how to obtain the ID, accepted value ranges, or behavior for invalid IDs.
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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Get details of a specific connection by ID.' It conveys a targeted lookup and distinguishes from listing tools, but it does not explicitly differentiate from connection-related siblings like introspect_connection or preview_connection.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the many related siblings such as list_connections, introspect_connection, or query_connection. The phrase 'specific connection by ID' implies a use case, but there are no explicit when/when-not criteria or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.