Retrieves complete normalized help for a specified dbatools command, including parameters and examples from comment-based help, so you can understand how to use it correctly.
Get the full normalized help for a specific dbatools command, including parameters and examples sourced from comment-based help.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| commandName | Yes | Exact command name, e.g. Get-DbaDatabase |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the return content — normalized help with parameters and examples drawn from comment-based help — which tells the agent what to expect back.
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 well-formed sentence with the action and the return payload front-loaded. Nothing redundant or padded.
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 closed-world read with a fully documented single param and no output schema, the description says what comes back and where it is sourced from. The only minor gap is behavior for an unknown or misspelled command name (error vs empty result).
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 at 100% schema coverage with an inline example ('Get-DbaDatabase'), so the schema carries the semantics. The description only restates that a specific command name is needed and adds no format or lookup guidance beyond the 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 the full normalized help for a specific dbatools command', plus the payload it returns (parameters and examples). It is distinct from list_dbatools_commands and invoke_dbatools_command in practice, but it never names those siblings to make the contrast explicit.
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 required exact command name suggests you must already know the command, presumably found via list_dbatools_commands, but the description never says so. No when-not-to-use or alternative guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.