get_recordRetrieve a specific record from an Airtable base by ID. Provide the base, table, and record IDs to fetch the exact row you need.
Get a specific record by ID
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| baseId | Yes | The ID of the base | |
| tableId | Yes | The ID or name of the table | |
| recordId | Yes | The ID of the record |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| fields | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.14.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the safety profile. The description repeats the basic read operation but adds no further behavioral context, such as not-found behavior, permission requirements, or error handling.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The core action and lookup key appear immediately.
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-by-ID tool with full schema parameter descriptions and an output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. It lacks only explicit routing guidance against sibling lookup tools.
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%, so all three parameters are fully documented in the schema itself. The description mentions retrieving by ID but adds no additional format or meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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 specific verb and resource: 'Get a specific record by ID.' It implies single-record retrieval in contrast to sibling list/search tools, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from list_records or search_records.
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?
The phrase 'by ID' implies the tool should be used when a specific record ID is already known. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives such as search_records or list_records.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.