Retrieves a selected onboarding blueprint by its ID in the current organization, enabling MCP clients to inspect the exact blueprint needed for onboarding workflows.
Get the selected onboarding blueprint Get the selected onboarding blueprint in the current organization GET /relocation/onboarding/blueprint/{id}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The id of the blueprint (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=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered by structured data. The description does add one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond the annotations: the lookup is scoped to the current organization. It says nothing about auth requirements, a 404 for unknown ids, or what a 'selected' blueprint means.
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 same idea is stated twice ('Get the selected onboarding blueprint' / '...in the current organization') and then restated a third time as a raw HTTP route, so roughly half the text is redundant. It is short, but it is repetition rather than front-loaded information.
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 tool with rich annotations, the essential call information is present. However, the description never indicates what a blueprint record contains or what 'selected' denotes, which is a real gap given there is no output schema.
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 is documented in the schema as the path id, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no id format, provenance (where to obtain the id), or validation detail beyond the schema.
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 (Get) and resource (onboarding blueprint) and pins the scope to the current organization, with the path template confirming lookup by id. It's distinguishable from onboarding_get_blueprint (the list variant) by the 'by_id' naming and path, though the text never explicitly contrasts the two.
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 versus onboarding_get_blueprint or the other onboarding getters, and no prerequisites or error conditions are mentioned. Usage is only implicit in the word 'Get'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.