AIUseCaseHub MCP

Read an AI deployment case

get_usecase_details

Read-only

Retrieve detailed information for a specific AI use case using its RowKey or ID.

Instructions

Fetch detailed information for a single AI use case by RowKey/id.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "row_key": "<row_key>"
    },
    "name": "get_usecase_details"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	No	Alias for row_key.
`row_key`	Yes	The RowKey/id returned by search tools.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.1Sep 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns 'detailed information' for a single record but does not describe the response structure, fields, or any constraints beyond identification.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single, focused sentence that states the purpose in a front-loaded manner. There is no filler, irrelevant repetition, or unnecessary detail.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only fetch with one required parameter and clear annotations, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. The absence of an output schema is not a gap here, since the tool's purpose is self-explanatory.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema provides 100% coverage of both parameters, including an alias relationship between id and row_key. The description's mention of 'by RowKey/id' simply mirrors the schema and adds no deeper semantic or formatting guidance.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Fetch detailed information'), the resource ('a single AI use case'), and the identifier needed ('by RowKey/id'). This distinguishes it from the search-related sibling tools, which are for discovering rather than reading a specific record.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description makes it clear this tool is for retrieving a specific use case when a RowKey/id is already known, implicitly distinguishing it from the search siblings. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name those alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server