Retrieve OAuth client details by client ID to manage client configurations.
Get OAuth client(s).
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "getClient"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | Id of client |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.9Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states a read operation ('Get'), but omits details like error handling, authentication needs, or behavior when id is absent. The description is too minimal for full transparency.
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, clear sentence with no waste. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices useful content, which prevents a perfect score for conciseness.
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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description does not explain return values, error conditions, or meaningful usage context. For a simple getter, it is barely adequate but incomplete.
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% for the single parameter 'id', which has a basic description. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond 'Get OAuth client(s)', so the baseline 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 'Get OAuth client(s).' clearly states the verb (Get) and resource (OAuth client), and the optional id parameter implies it can retrieve one or all, distinguishing it from siblings like deleteClient or patchClient.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as getColumn or patchClient. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.