get_packageRetrieve a package by ID from MASV to inspect its details and manage associated file transfers.
Get package by id
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| packageId | Yes | Id of the package to retrieve |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on error behavior for a missing id, no indication of what a 'package' contains, and no operational context.
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 five-word phrase with zero waste and the key retrieval constraint front-loaded. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than deliberately terse.
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 one-parameter lookup with no output schema, the schema and readOnly annotation carry most of the burden, so minimal prose is tolerable. Still, nothing describes what a package represents or how the agent should react to a not-found id.
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 parameter is fully documented, so the schema does the work. 'By id' merely restates what the schema already says, adding no format or constraint detail.
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 package by id'), and the singular form implies a single-resource fetch vs the plural 'get_packages' sibling. However, it never explicitly distinguishes itself from get_packages or get_package_files, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer get_packages instead, and no prerequisites. Usage is only implied by the name itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.