Retrieve an action template by ID to inspect its configuration and reuse it in automation workflows.
Fetch an action template by its ID Retrieves an action template entity with a specific ID GET /abx/api/resources/action-templates/{id}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ID of the action template (path) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the REST path (GET /abx/api/resources/action-templates/{id}), which is mild extra context but discloses nothing new about behavior, errors, or returns.
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 three lines are front-loaded and short, but the first two sentences restate the same fact and the third merely repeats the endpoint already present in the annotation title. Roughly half the text is redundant with structured fields.
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 one-parameter idempotent read with full annotation coverage and complete schema descriptions, the definition is complete enough to invoke correctly. Missing detail is limited to what happens on an unknown ID, which is minor for a simple GET.
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 100% and the single parameter already documents that it is the path ID of the action template. The description says 'by its ID' but adds no format, source, or lookup guidance beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.
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 and resource ('Fetch an action template') and scopes it to a single entity via 'by its ID', which implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling abx_get_all_action_templates. It never names the list sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.
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 implied by 'by its ID' — an agent can infer this is the single-record lookup rather than the list tool — but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.