Retrieve a specific appointment by ID to access its dispatch and scheduling details.
Retrieve one appointment record by ID, including its dispatch and scheduling data. Use dispatch_appointments_list to search by job, customer, technician, status, start time, or other filters.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Appointment ID |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "properties": {},
+ "type": "object"
+}v2.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds the specific return scope ('including its dispatch and scheduling data') and the single-record behavior, which is useful but not deeply detailed beyond the annotations and output schema.
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?
Two purposeful sentences with no filler. The primary action is stated first, and the alternative tool is mentioned in the second sentence without unnecessary detail.
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-ID lookup with one required parameter, comprehensive annotations, an output schema, and clear sibling differentiation, the description is complete. Nothing an agent needs to choose and invoke the tool correctly is missing.
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%, and the single 'id' parameter is self-explanatory as 'Appointment ID'. The description does not add parameter-level detail, but the schema already fully documents it, 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 clearly states the tool retrieves one appointment record by ID, and explicitly notes it includes dispatch and scheduling data. It differentiates itself from dispatch_appointments_list, which is the search-oriented sibling, so an agent can identify the correct tool without inspecting schemas.
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 explicit routing guidance: use this tool for single-record lookup by ID, and use dispatch_appointments_list for filtered searches across multiple criteria. This is a clear when-to-use vs. alternative explanation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.