Returns the full catalog record for one API operation by operation ID, covering method, host, path, scope, safety level, pagination, rate limit, parameters, and docs URL.
Return the full catalog record for one endpoint: method, host, path, scope, safety level, pagination style, rate limit, params and doc URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| operation_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the specific content of the returned record, which is useful context, but it doesn't disclose any additional behavioral traits such as error handling, auth requirements, or side effects. Since annotations cover the read-only nature, this is adequate but not rich.
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 that lists all relevant fields without any filler. Every word earns its place, and the structure is perfectly readable for an agent scanning for a quick purpose.
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?
With an output schema present, the description doesn't need to detail return values. It lists the record's fields, which covers the content. It doesn't mention what happens with an invalid operation_id or how to obtain one, but given the read-only nature and the existence of sibling search tools, this is acceptable. The description is complete enough for the tool's simple role.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. The parameter operation_id is only implicitly defined via 'one endpoint.' It doesn't explicitly state that operation_id is the identifier for the endpoint, nor does it provide format or examples. However, the parameter name is self-explanatory and the description implies its role, so it meets the minimum bar.
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: 'Return the full catalog record for one endpoint.' It enumerates the exact fields returned (method, host, path, scope, safety level, pagination style, rate limit, params, doc URL), making it unmistakably distinct from sibling tools like wb_search_methods (search) or wb_call_method (execute). The singular 'one endpoint' clarifies its scope.
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?
The description clearly implies usage: call this when you have an operation_id and need the full details of a single endpoint. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the distinction from search/call tools is evident from 'one endpoint' and the listed fields. No exclusions are stated, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.