apple_swift_evolution_getFetch a Swift Evolution proposal by ID to see its status, authors, and full body. Use it to check Swift language changes or proposal details while coding.
Return a proposal by id (e.g. SE-0428) with status, authors, and full body.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| format | No | Response format | markdown |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing the returned content (status, authors, full body), which no annotation conveys. It says nothing about error behavior for an unknown id, keeping it short of a 5.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the return payload and id example appended without filler. Every clause 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?
With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the return fields (status, authors, full body), which is what an agent most needs for a single-item get. The only gap is the format parameter's effect on the response, which is left to the 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 50%: format carries its own 'Response format' description while id has none. The description compensates for id by giving the expected identifier form (SE-0428), but adds nothing about the markdown/json format parameter. Baseline 3 fits this partial compensation.
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 (Return) and resource (a proposal by id), plus what the response contains (status, authors, full body) and the id format example SE-0428. It clearly implies the single-item counterpart to apple_swift_evolution_list, though it never names a sibling to disambiguate explicitly.
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: the example id format (SE-0428) signals you must already have a proposal identifier, which indirectly routes browsing users to apple_swift_evolution_list or apple_swift_evolution_filter. There is no explicit when-to-use statement or exclusion for those siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.