Retrieve a specific SWSD role's name and description using its unique record ID. Use this function after listing roles to access detailed information about that specific role.
Fetch one SWSD role by id. Returns name and description. Use swsd_list_roles first to find the id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | SWSD record id (from the matching swsd_list_* tool). |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| role | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive behavior, lowering the burden. The description adds that the response is scoped to name and description and that the call depends on a prior lookup for the id, which is useful context beyond the 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?
Three short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the lookup prerequisite placed after the operation is understood. Every sentence earns its place.
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 read tool with an output schema, full annotation coverage and 100% schema description coverage, nothing an agent needs is missing: what it returns, how to get the id, and the safety profile are all covered.
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 id parameter is already documented with its source ('from the matching swsd_list_* tool'), so the description's 'by id' and list-first note largely restate the schema. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 with scope: fetch ONE role by id, and immediately names its return payload (name and description). This clearly separates it from the sibling swsd_list_roles, which returns the collection.
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?
Gives an explicit precondition workflow: 'Use swsd_list_roles first to find the id.' That is real routing guidance naming the alternative tool. It stops short of stating when NOT to use this tool (e.g., when the role name is already known), but the usage context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.