Retrieves external resource values for form rendering by resolving the supplied value source type, enabling forms to populate dynamic options and references.
Retrieve external resource value Retrieve external resource value depending on provided value source type POST /form-service/api/forms/renderer/external-resources
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | Request body |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag openWorldHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, which is mildly surprising for something described as a "Retrieve" – the description does not explain that this is a POST-based lookup, whether it triggers external/scriptAction calls, whether it has side effects, or whether results are cached. The one useful addition is that resolution depends on valueSource.type, but no safety or cost implications are disclosed.
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 first two lines are the same sentence repeated verbatim, and the third is a raw endpoint path that adds little for an agent. It is short, but it wastes roughly half its length on duplication rather than front-loading anything useful.
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?
The body is a deeply nested object (item, context, valueType, valueSource) with no output schema, so the description should at least hint at what comes back or what the valueSource types mean. Instead it says nothing about return shape, pagination (valueSource.isPageable exists), or error behavior, leaving a complex lookup under-explained.
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% and there is effectively one top-level parameter (body), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's only added meaning is that the answer varies by value source type, which points at valueSource.type but adds no detail on item, filter, context, projectId, or valueType fields.
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?
It gives a verb and resource ("Retrieve external resource value") and adds that the result depends on the supplied value source type, which is more than a bare restatement. However, it never distinguishes itself from the near-identical siblings form_lookup_external_resource (singular) and form_get_external_value, so an agent cannot choose between them from the text alone.
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 statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or how it relates to the very similar lookup/get siblings. The only contextual hint is the phrase "depending on provided value source type", which describes mechanics rather than selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.