Retrieve a specific automation-person pairing by ID to check or verify which automation is linked to a person in Follow Up Boss.
Retrieve an Automation-Person pairing. (GET /automationsPeople/{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 must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Retrieve' and shows a GET endpoint, which implies a read operation, but it does not disclose possible missing-resource behavior, permission requirements, or how extraQuery interacts with the request. This is minimal rather than informative.
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 plus endpoint reference, with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the operation and the path.
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 by-id retrieval tool, the description plus schema is minimally sufficient to attempt a call, since the only required input is the id. However, without annotations or usage guidance, an agent still lacks guidance on behavior, alternatives, or expected edge cases. It is adequate but thin.
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 schema describes extraQuery but not the required id parameter, giving 50% coverage. The description only echoes the endpoint placeholder 'id' without explaining what the id refers to beyond 'pairing. It does not compensate for the undocumented required parameter.
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 names a specific verb ('Retrieve') and a specific resource ('Automation-Person pairing'), with an explicit endpoint. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_automation, get_person, and list_automations_people, which concern different resources.
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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_automations_people, create_automations_person, or update_automations_person. Usage is only implied by the name and endpoint, with no exclusions or alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.