Retrieve a specific appointment outcome by ID. Provide the unique identifier to get the outcome details you need from Follow Up Boss CRM.
Retrieve an appointment outcome by ID. (GET /appointmentOutcomes/{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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Retrieve' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose potential behaviors such as 404 handling, auth requirements, rate limits, or what fields are returned. The description adds little beyond the obvious semantics of a GET-by-ID request.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence with the key information front-loaded. Including the HTTP endpoint is a small, useful addition. There is no wasted text.
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 get-by-ID tool, the description is minimally viable: it names the resource and the lookup key. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves the return shape and error behavior unspecified. Given the extraQuery parameter and the generic nature of the schema description, more contextual detail would help an agent invoke this correctly, but the tool is simple enough that the description is adequate but not complete.
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 only 50% (the 'id' parameter has no description in the schema). The description repeats 'by ID' but adds no new meaning about the parameter's format or source. The extraQuery parameter is already documented in the schema, and the description does not clarify how it applies to this specific endpoint. Since the description must compensate for the incomplete schema coverage and does not, this is a significant gap.
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: 'Retrieve an appointment outcome by ID'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_appointment_outcomes (list), create_appointment_outcome (create), and update_appointment_outcome (update). The HTTP endpoint reinforces the intent without ambiguity.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that you should use it when you already have a specific appointment outcome ID, nor does it reference list_appointment_outcomes for searching without an ID. The usage context is only implied by the phrase 'by ID'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.