alias_getFetch full details of a SimpleLogin alias by numeric ID to inspect its note, mailboxes, enabled/pinned state, PGP status, and activity counters.
Get full details of a single SimpleLogin alias by its numeric id, including note, mailboxes, enabled/pinned state, PGP status, and activity counters.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| alias_id | Yes | Numeric id of the alias to fetch. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds what data comes back (note, mailboxes, enabled/pinned, PGP status, counters), but says nothing about auth needs, error behavior for unknown ids, or rate limits.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the identifying detail immediately after. Nothing is padded or redundant.
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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields, which compensates for the missing output schema. Only the lack of any statement about failure modes or usage context keeps it from being fully complete.
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% and the single alias_id parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the description's 'by its numeric id' adds no syntax or constraint information beyond it. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the work.
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 details of a single SimpleLogin alias) and scopes it to one record by numeric id, which implicitly separates it from alias_list. An agent can tell it apart from sibling list tools without opening the schema.
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 id-based lookup makes it clear this is for when you already have an alias id, but the description never states when to prefer it over alias_list or alias_options_get, nor any prerequisites such as needing the id from a prior listing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.