Retrieve details of a specific nana800 automation scheme by its ID. Use it to inspect a scheme's configuration, blocks, and settings before editing or running it.
Get details of a specific scheme by its ID
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scheme_id | No | The unique ID of the scheme (uses MCP_SCHEME_ID env if not provided) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not say what happens when the ID is missing or invalid, whether it errors or returns empty, or how large the returned scheme detail is (nodes, edges, processes). Only 'Get' hints that it is non-mutating.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste. Its brevity borders on under-specified rather than verbose, but every word 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?
A minimal single-record getter with no output schema needs little, but with zero required parameters the tool can be called with no arguments and resolve via MCP_SCHEME_ID – an important behavior the description never mentions. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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 schema already documents scheme_id including the MCP_SCHEME_ID env fallback. The phrase 'by its ID' merely echoes the parameter, adding no syntax or format 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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Get details of a specific scheme by its ID'. Clear enough to act on, but it does not distinguish itself from near-name siblings such as scheme_get_context_type, scheme_get_swagger_json, or scheme_list_by_project.
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 'by its ID' – the agent infers this is the single-record fetch to use when it already holds a scheme ID. There is no explicit when-to-use versus scheme_list_by_project or the other scheme_get_* variants.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.