hail

Official

by hail-hq

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Hybrid

Get an agent

get_agent

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch one saved agent by id. agent_id comes from list_agents or create_agent.

Instructions

Fetch one saved agent by id. agent_id comes from list_agents or create_agent.

    Returns the ``AgentResponse`` as a dict (``name``, ``system_prompt``,
    ``first_message``, ``ai_disclosure``, ``voice_config``, ``tools``,
    ``voice_enabled``, ``sms_enabled``, ``status``, ...), or
    ``{"error": "<message>"}``.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`agent_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.29.0Oct 21, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety burden is covered. The description adds value beyond them by describing the returned shape and the ``{"error": ...}`` failure case, which the annotations do not convey.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short, front-loaded paragraphs: purpose and id provenance first, return shape second. No filler; the return-shape enumeration is the only part that partly overlaps the existing output schema.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so enumerating fields is arguably redundant, but the description rounds it out with the error-case shape and id sourcing. For a one-parameter read tool this is sufficient to call correctly; only id format/edge-case behavior is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% (the single ``agent_id`` string is undocumented in the schema), so the description must compensate. It adds provenance for the id (from list_agents or create_agent) but never specifies format, or behavior on an unknown/missing id beyond a generic error dict.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ("Fetch one saved agent by id") and contrasts implicitly with list_agents/create_agent by naming them as the source of the id. An agent can distinguish this single-record read from the sibling list/create/update/delete agent tools immediately.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Tells the caller where the required id comes from ("``agent_id`` comes from ``list_agents`` or ``create_agent``"), which routes the agent to the correct prerequisite tools. It does not state any when-not conditions, but for a simple read-by-id there is little ambiguity.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.