show_policyRetrieve the active version and status of a policy by its UUID to check its current state.
Returns the active version + status for one policy by id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| policy_id | Yes | The policy UUID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this is a safe, idempotent, read-only, closed-world operation, so the burden is light. The description adds genuine context by specifying the return payload (active version + status), but says nothing about behavior when the id is unknown or about auth requirements.
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, zero filler, and the resource and return content are front-loaded. Nothing needs trimming or reordering.
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 simple single-record read with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient; the return shape is summarized. Only not-found/error behavior is left unaddressed, a minor gap.
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 single policy_id carries a UUID format, pattern, and description, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's 'by id' merely reinforces what the schema already documents, matching the baseline for full coverage.
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 ('Returns the active version + status for one policy') and scopes it to a single record via 'by id', which distinguishes it from list_policies. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it differs from, but an agent can tell it apart from the list/management tools.
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 single-id framing suggests 'call this when you already have a policy_id'. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to alternatives such as list_policies for enumeration.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.