mcp-daktela

by hajekd

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Remote

get_web_chat

Retrieve complete details of a specific web chat activity by its ID for in-depth inspection.

Instructions

Get full details of a single web chat activity by its ID.

Args: name: The web chat activity ID (e.g. 'ACT00123' or the 'name' field from list_web_chats).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "get_web_chat"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.0Aug 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry safety and behavior disclosure. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but there is no explicit statement about side effects, required permissions, or rate limits. This is acceptable for such a simple getter, though not richly transparent.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is two sentences plus an inline arg doc. It is front-loaded and contains no filler; every element adds selection or invocation value.

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?

With an output schema present, the tool doesn't need to describe return values. It covers the single parameter fully and provides a source for valid IDs. It could have mentioned channel alternatives, but the name and sibling list make the scope clear.

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

Parameters5/5

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

The schema has only a required 'name' string with zero description, but the description fully explains it: 'The web chat activity ID (e.g. ACT00123 or the name field from list_web_chats).' This entirely compensates for the missing schema description.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get full details of a single web chat activity by its ID.' This clearly distinguishes it from the list tool and aligns with the get_* sibling pattern.

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?

It provides clear context: when you have a web chat activity ID (e.g., ACT00123) or a name from list_web_chats. It does not explicitly list exclusion criteria or alternatives, but the channel-specific naming and source pointer offer sufficient guidance.

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