Fetch a provisioning endpoint by ID to retrieve its details and configuration for an organization.
Proxy to fetch a provisioning endpoint by self link Retrieves provisioning endpoints for given organization GET /abx/api/provisioning/endpoints/{id}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | (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, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only that this is a 'proxy' call and the underlying REST route; it says nothing about behavior on a missing/invalid id or error conditions.
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?
Three short lines, front-loaded with the purpose, so it is compact. But the second line is a misleading plural/organization claim that should either be removed or reconciled, so not every sentence earns its place.
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, read-only GET with no output schema and rich annotations, the definition is minimally sufficient. The internal inconsistency about scope (single endpoint vs. list for an organization) is the main gap an agent would notice when calling it.
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% for the single 'id' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The phrase 'by self link' hints that the id is a self-link-style identifier rather than a plain UUID, which is marginal added meaning, but the description never clarifies whether it is the endpoint id, an org id, etc.
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 opening clause 'fetch a provisioning endpoint by self link' names a specific verb and resource and implies a by-id lookup that differs from the plural sibling abx_get_all_provisioning_endpoints. However, the next line ('Retrieves provisioning endpoints for given organization') is plural and organization-scoped, contradicting the by-id framing and leaving the agent unsure whether this returns one endpoint or many.
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: 'by self link' and the single 'id' path parameter suggest you call this when you already have an identifier. There is no explicit statement to use abx_get_all_provisioning_endpoints when you lack an id, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.