Retrieve complete details for a consumer complaint by its ID, including product, issue, company, response, and dates.
Get full details for a specific complaint by its Complaint ID. Returns all fields: product, issue, company, narrative (if consented), response, dates, etc.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| complaint_id | Yes | CFPB Complaint ID number |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2026.4.11Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev2026.3.9Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only and idempotent behavior, and the description adds the useful caveat that narrative is returned 'if consented,' disclosing a possible conditional absence of data. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema's parameter definition.
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 two sentences with no filler. The primary action and required identifier are front-loaded, and the second sentence economically lists the key return fields.
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?
Given the single-parameter schema, safe read-only annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description provides a reasonable inventory of returned fields and notes the condition on narrative. It is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and result shape, though an explicit response format would make it stronger.
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 input schema already provides 100% coverage with a clear description of the complaint_id parameter. The tool description repeats the concept ('by its Complaint ID') but does not add extra guidance about format, provenance, or how to obtain a valid ID, so the baseline score of 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 states a specific verb ('Get full details') and resource ('a specific complaint by its Complaint ID'). This clearly differentiates the tool from the sibling search, aggregation, and trend tools, which operate over sets of complaints rather than a single identified record.
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 makes the usage context clear: call this tool when you already have a Complaint ID and need the full record. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'specific complaint' framing implies that search tools should be used to find IDs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.