Retrieves detailed information for a specific version of a blueprint, enabling version-specific configuration inspection.
Returns versioned blueprint details GET /blueprint/api/blueprints/{blueprintId}/versions/{version}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| select | No | Fields to include in content. | |
| version | Yes | (path) | |
| blueprintId | 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, covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond restating the endpoint, saying nothing about auth needs, error behavior, or payload shape.
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 definition is minimal, with the purpose front-loaded before the endpoint path. There is no wasted prose, though the terseness crosses into under-specification rather than genuine conciseness.
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 read-only GET with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the core is present. However, against a dense sibling set of blueprint retrieval tools, it omits any disambiguation or return-shape hint that would make selection confident.
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%, so the schema documents all three parameters including the 'select' field-inclusion array. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, 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 names a specific verb (Returns) and resource (versioned blueprint details), and includes the exact REST path. An agent understands what it fetches, though it does not distinguish this from close siblings like blueprint_get_blueprint or blueprint_get_blueprint_version_inputs_schema.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives. It doesn't say when to prefer this over blueprint_list_blueprint_versions (to discover a version) or blueprint_get_blueprint (latest version), so the agent must infer the distinction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.