Retrieve a TestMonitor team by its unique ID, optionally including members, creator, updater, or deleter relations.
Get a specific team. Retrieve a specific team using its unique identifier.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| query | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds no behavioral context of its own — nothing about what a team object contains, whether relation expansions are supported, or any permission requirements.
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?
It is short, but both sentences are redundant restatements of the tool name, so the second sentence earns nothing. Front-loading is fine, but the space is spent on repetition rather than 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 simple read-only getter with no output schema, the description should at least convey what is returned or that relation data can be included via 'with'. It conveys neither, leaving the agent to infer everything from the schema.
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?
Top-level schema coverage is 0% (path and query carry no descriptions), and the description adds no parameter meaning at all — it never names teamId or the 'with' relation-expansion option. The nested 'with' description in the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description fails to compensate or hint at that capability.
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 two sentences say the same thing twice ('Get a specific team' / 'Retrieve a specific team using its unique identifier') — a tautology that largely restates the tool name. It does not distinguish itself from siblings such as get_team_collection, get_team_members, or put_team/delete_team.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance: no statement that this is for fetching one team by ID versus listing teams via get_team_collection, and no mention of prerequisites or when a related tool (e.g. get_team_members) would be preferable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.