getPropertySchemaRetrieve the complete JSON Schema for a class property to define its data type, validation rules, and constraints for accurate data handling.
Returns the full JSON Schema object for a class property
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| className | Yes | Class name, case-insensitive | |
| propertyName | Yes | Property name, case-insensitive |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.12.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does communicate that the tool is a read operation returning a full JSON Schema object, but it doesn't mention error handling, case-insensitivity, authorization requirements, or any limitations. This leaves important behavioral context undisclosed.
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 concise sentence that front-loads the primary behavior. It contains no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.
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 two-parameter lookup with high schema coverage, the description plus schema is largely sufficient. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the tool doesn't explain failure behavior or how this differs from the similarly named getPropertyQuerySchema. The definition is adequate but leaves some context for an agent to infer.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, including case-insensitive semantics for both parameters. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail beyond identifying a 'class property,' so it does not improve on the schema. A baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already documents the parameters well.
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: it 'Returns the full JSON Schema object for a class property.' It distinguishes itself from most siblings by emphasizing the returned artifact. However, it doesn't clarify how this relates to similar sibling tools like getPropertyQuerySchema, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.
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 provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as listPropertiesByClassName or getPropertyQuerySchema. The description implies a lookup operation but gives no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, which is a meaningful gap given the large sibling tool set.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.