Retrieve an appointment by ID from Follow Up Boss CRM to access its complete details for scheduling or verification.
Retrieve an appointment by id. (GET /appointments/{id})
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| extraQuery | No | Extra raw query parameters not explicitly listed above — e.g. FUB custom field filters like custom.ClosingDate on /people or /deals. Keys and values are sent as-is. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Retrieve an appointment by id', which implies read-only but doesn't disclose any side effects, required permissions, error behavior, or response format. For a simple GET it is minimally acceptable, but it fails to add any context beyond the action itself.
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 sentence with the endpoint included, front-loaded and free of fluff. It is appropriately sized for a simple retrieval operation; no unnecessary detail dilutes the message.
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 no output schema, no annotations, and incomplete parameter coverage, the description leaves out essential context. It doesn't mention what the response contains, that extraQuery can be used for custom filters, or any limitations. For a tool with a nested object and sibling retrieval tools, this is insufficient for an agent to call it correctly without external knowledge.
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?
The description mentions only 'by id', which is already visible in the schema as the required 'id' property. It does not explain the format or purpose of id, and completely omits the optional 'extraQuery' parameter, which has schema coverage only at 50%. Since schema coverage is low and the description adds no parameter meaning, it fails to compensate.
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 clear action ('Retrieve') and a specific resource ('an appointment by id'), and even includes the HTTP endpoint. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling retrieval tools like get_event or get_call, though the name itself is explicit. It is slightly redundant with the tool name but adds the id-based intent.
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?
No usage guidance is provided beyond the obvious retrieval-by-id action. There is no mention of when to use this vs. alternatives (e.g., list_appointments when id is unknown), nor any exclusions or conditions. The context implies usage but doesn't state it explicitly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.