Fetch a specific appointment type's details by ID to display or verify its configuration in Follow Up Boss CRM.
Retrieve an appointment type by ID (GET /appointmentTypes/{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 discloses the HTTP method (GET) and resource path, which implies a read operation, but it does not describe error behavior, authentication requirements, or what happens if the ID does not exist. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the endpoint 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?
The description is a single sentence that is concise and front-loads the core action. It includes the HTTP endpoint, which is useful but slightly redundant with the tool name. No wasted words, though it could have used the space to add usage guidance.
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 read-by-ID tool, the description is minimal but not entirely inadequate. However, with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented 'id' parameter, an agent lacks information about expected return values, error cases, and parameter format. The sibling list_appointment_types suggests this is part of a CRUD family, but the description does not clarify how this tool fits.
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 50%: the 'id' parameter has no description in the schema, and 'extraQuery' has a detailed description. The tool description does not explain the 'id' parameter format or that it is the appointment type identifier, though the endpoint path implies it. The 'extraQuery' parameter is well-documented in the schema, so the description adds little beyond what the schema already provides.
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 ('Retrieve') and resource ('appointment type by ID'), and includes the HTTP endpoint (GET /appointmentTypes/{id}) which makes the operation unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like get_appointment or list_appointment_types, but the resource and ID-based lookup are clear enough.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that list_appointment_types should be used for browsing or that get_appointment is for individual appointments, not appointment types. An agent must infer usage from the name and endpoint alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.