Retrieve details for a specific iRODS ticket, including ID and expiration time, in JSON format. Requires authentication; anonymous users are not allowed.
Get information about a specific iRODS ticket, such as its ID and expiration time, in JSON format. Anonymous users are not allowed to get ticket information.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | The name of the iRODS ticket to get information about. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that output is JSON and gives example fields (ID, expiration time), plus an auth restriction for anonymous users. It does not mention error behavior, permissions beyond anonymous, or other operational traits.
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?
Two sentences, zero waste, and the core purpose is front-loaded. The auth constraint follows naturally without burying the main action.
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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, auth requirement, and return format. It is nearly complete, though it could briefly note error conditions or whether the response includes all ticket fields.
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 100%: the single parameter 'name' is fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no syntax or format details beyond referring to 'a specific iRODS ticket', so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 states a specific verb ('Get information about') and resource ('a specific iRODS ticket'), and adds the return format ('JSON'). It distinguishes from the sibling ds_list_tickets by specifying 'specific', but does not explicitly name that alternative.
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 includes an auth prerequisite ('Anonymous users are not allowed to get ticket information'), which gives context. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives, nor any exclusions beyond the anonymous restriction. Usage is only implied by the purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.