Retrieves a single record from any Knesset data table by ID, with optional linked records for richer context.
Fetch one record from any table by its Id, optionally with linked records.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The record's Id | |
| table | Yes | Table name, e.g. KNS_Committee | |
| expand | No | Links to include, e.g. KNS_Committee,KNS_Status |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile: readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful scope context ('any table') and the linked-record option, but it does not disclose not-found behavior, error handling, or expand semantics. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence contains the operation, the resource type, the key constraint, and the optional behavior. No filler or redundant phrasing.
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 fetch tool with robust annotations and a fully documented schema, the description is nearly complete. An agent can invoke it correctly. A small gap is the lack of response/not-found behavior, but that is not essential for selecting or calling the tool.
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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented. The description adds only the idea of optional linked records, which lightly reinforces the expand parameter but does not materially enrich parameter understanding beyond the schema.
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 and resource: 'Fetch one record from any table by its Id', which clearly identifies the operation. It is implicitly distinguished from sibling get_* tools by the phrase 'any table', though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the more generic query tool.
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 gives a clear context: use when you need a single record by ID, optionally with linked records. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over alternatives like query or the dedicated get_person/get_bill tools, nor does it mention exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.