Fetch a single decision by reference from the fenbs board, including question, rationale, decider, date, linked tasks, and earlier versions. Use it to inspect decision context and history.
One decision by ref (DEC-004): the question, what was decided, why, who decided and when, linked tasks, and earlier versions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the shape of the returned content (question, decision, rationale, decider, timestamp, linked tasks, versions), which helps an agent know what to expect. However, it says nothing about error behavior for an invalid ref, permission requirements, or whether earlier versions are included by default.
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 resource and key, with the returned fields enumerated compactly. No filler, though the field list is dense rather than prioritized.
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 single-record read with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns and how to address the record. It is nearly complete; only error/permission behavior is unaddressed.
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 0%, but the single 'ref' parameter is self-describing and the description supplies a concrete example format (DEC-004), which is meaningfully more than the bare string schema. This compensates well for the missing schema description.
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 names the resource (one decision) and the lookup key (ref), giving an example identifier format (DEC-004). It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling fenbs_list_decisions by specifying a single record, though the verb is elided.
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?
Using 'ref' to fetch one decision implies retrieval once you have an identifier, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus fenbs_list_decisions or fenbs_get_item, nor any prerequisite guidance. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.