Fetch a pond by its unique ID from the Follow Up Boss CRM. Provides the matching pond record when you supply the identifier.
Get a pond by id. (GET /ponds/{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 behavioral disclosure. It does indicate the HTTP method (GET) and scoping by id, which implies a read-only exact-match retrieval, but it does not mention error cases (e.g., 404) or response shape. For a simple getter this is minimally adequate.
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 no filler, and the endpoint is included parenthetically for immediate context. Every word earns its place.
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?
Given the simple read operation, the description plus schema covers the essential parameter (id, with the endpoint), and extraQuery is documented in the schema. Missing details like error handling or return format are not covered, but there is no output schema and the tool is straightforward.
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%; only extraQuery is described. The description adds meaning to the 'id' parameter by stating the tool retrieves 'by id', but it does not elaborate on id format or extraQuery. The schema already documents extraQuery, so the description provides marginal value beyond the schema.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get) and resource ('pond), and specifies retrieval by 'id', clearly distinguishing it from list_ponds (which lists multiple ponds) and from other resource getters like get_event or get_call. The endpoint '(GET /ponds/{id})' reinforces the scope.
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 clearly implies the tool is for retrieving a single pond when an id is available, which is the context for use. However, it does not explicitly contrast with list_ponds or other alternatives, and provides no exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.