Fetch a Cloudcraft blueprint's full payload—nodes, edges, groups, and layout—using its blueprint ID.
Fetch the full blueprint payload (nodes, edges, groups, layout).
Args:
blueprint_id: Blueprint UUID from :func:list_blueprints.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| blueprint_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description usefully discloses what the payload contains (nodes, edges, groups, layout), but says nothing about size, permissions, or rate limits for what could be a large full-graph fetch.
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 core sentence is front-loaded and precise, with the payload contents in parentheses rather than a separate list. The trailing 'Args:' block partly duplicates the schema, though the UUID-source hint earns it.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the single required parameter is documented with its source. For a one-param read tool this is nearly complete; only failure modes are unaddressed.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden, and it does: it identifies blueprint_id as a Blueprint UUID and directs the agent to list_blueprints as its source. It omits any invalid-id error behavior, keeping it just short of a 5.
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?
States a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('full blueprint payload') and enumerates the payload contents (nodes, edges, groups, layout), which makes it distinguishable from list_blueprints at a glance. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with the sibling list tool.
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?
Usage is only implied: the parameter doc notes the id comes from list_blueprints, sketching a list-then-fetch flow. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or comparison against list_blueprints or the export tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.