Fetch a single timesheet activity category by its ID to access details. Ideal when the category ID is already known.
Retrieve one timesheet activity category by its required ID. Use settings_activity_categories_list to search when the ID is unknown.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Activity category 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?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as error cases, not-found behavior, or response shape, but it also does not contradict the annotations. A middle score is appropriate since the annotations carry the burden.
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 sentences with no filler. The core lookup behavior is front-loaded, and the alternative-tool guidance is placed second. 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 simple single-ID retrieval tool with one well-documented parameter, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description is complete. It even covers the unknown-ID case by pointing to the list tool, so no essential guidance 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?
The input schema fully documents the only parameter, id, as an integer Activity category ID, so schema coverage is 100%. The description merely refers to 'required ID' without adding extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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 ('Retrieve'), a specific resource ('one timesheet activity category'), and the lookup key ('required ID'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like settings_activity_categories_list and settings_activity_categories_export by indicating this is a single-record lookup.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling list tool: use this when the ID is known, and use settings_activity_categories_list when the ID is unknown. This directly helps an agent select the correct tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.