get_pitch_typeRetrieve a pitch type by ID to view its charge type, capacity, pricing method, facilities, and linked pitch IDs.
One pitch type by ID, with its charge type and pitch IDs, capacity, pricing method and facilities.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pitch_type_id | Yes | Pitch type ID (a positive whole number) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds no auth, error, or rate-limit behavior; its field list is primarily output content rather than behavioral disclosure.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states scope and returned fields 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?
Given low complexity, full schema coverage, and read-only annotations, the description is nearly complete. It lists returned fields but omits not-found or error behavior, a minor gap for a simple getter.
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 description coverage is 100% and the single parameter is already documented. The description reinforces the ID key but adds no syntax or format meaning 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?
The description identifies the resource and scoping key ('One pitch type by ID') and enumerates returned data such as charge type, capacity, and facilities. It does not explicitly name list_pitch_types as the plural alternative, so sibling differentiation is implicit rather than stated.
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 by 'by ID'; there is no explicit when-to-use or exclusion telling the agent to prefer list_pitch_types when the ID is unknown or to use this only after a listing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.