Fetch a Raynet entity's fields, custom fields, and picklists (lead, businessCase, company, person) to map data before querying or updating CRM records.
Fetches the structure of a specific Raynet entity (fields, customFields, picklists)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entity | Yes | Name of the entity to inspect |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does state that the operation is a fetch of structural metadata, which implies read-only behavior. However, it does not disclose response shape, error conditions, or any entity-specific behavior, leaving an agent to discover those details at call time.
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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose without filler. It is appropriately compact for such a simple tool.
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 introspection tool, the description adequately states the resource and the kind of data returned. However, with no output schema, more detail about the exact structure of the result would improve completeness, and the absence of any usage caveats or relationship to sibling tools leaves some context missing.
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?
The schema already fully documents the only parameter ('entity') with an enum of four valid values, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds context about what kind of structure is returned but does not add new meaning to the parameter itself; baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 ('Fetches'), a clear resource ('structure of a specific Raynet entity'), and specifies the kind of content ('fields, customFields, picklists'). It is distinguishable from get_record and full_scan, though it does not explicitly disambiguate from the similarly named raynet_get_enumerations.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like raynet_get_enumerations or raynet_get_record. The usage context must be inferred from the tool name and entity parameter rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.