Retrieve a specific HSE procedure by ID with site-scoped access. Only procedures global or in your authorized site scope are returned, with fail-closed authorization.
Get one HSE procedure when it is global or in the caller's authorized site scope.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| site_ids | No | ||
| procedure_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the scope restriction, which is a behavioral constraint. However, it doesn't explain what happens if the procedure is not found, whether it's read-only (implied by 'get'), or any error handling. For a simple get operation, this is somewhat sufficient but still leaves gaps.
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 description is a single, efficient sentence with no redundancy. It front-loads the action and resource, and adds the scope condition in a compact clause. Every word earns its place, making it optimally concise.
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 tool with two parameters and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the site_ids parameter, doesn't provide usage guidance relative to siblings, and doesn't mention output or error conditions. The output schema may cover return values, but the description still leaves critical gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions scope authorization but doesn't explain the site_ids parameter at all. The procedure_id is self-explanatory from its name, but site_ids remains ambiguous. The description adds minimal value over the schema and fails to clarify the optional parameter.
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 clearly states the action (Get) and the resource (one HSE procedure), and adds a scoping condition (global or authorized site scope). It distinguishes from siblings implicitly by specifying a single procedure fetch, but doesn't explicitly name alternatives. This is clear and specific enough to understand the tool's core purpose.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over the sibling search tools. It only states a precondition (global or authorized site scope) which clarifies when the tool can be used, not when it should be used. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.