Retrieve the complete configuration for a specific AI assistant by its ID. Use it to inspect assistant settings and return the full JSON config.
Return the complete configuration for one assistant.
Args: assistant_id: Assistant id.
Returns: JSON result.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| assistant_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read ('Return the complete configuration') but says nothing about authorization, what happens if the assistant_id is unknown, or the depth of the returned configuration. The only disclosure is that the result is a single complete configuration.
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 one-line purpose is front-loaded and efficient, but the Args/Returns boilerplate adds little: the Args line is a tautology and the Returns line ('JSON result') is redundant given an output schema exists. Short overall, but not every line 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?
With an output schema present, the description need not enumerate return fields, and for a single-parameter getter the scope is small. Still, it omits error behavior and any hint of what 'complete configuration' contains, which is the main thing an agent would want to know before calling.
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 0% and there is one required parameter. The description's 'Args: assistant_id: Assistant id.' merely restates the property name and type with no added meaning (no format, no source, no constraints), leaving the parameter effectively undocumented.
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 clear verb and resource: 'Return the complete configuration for one assistant.' That distinguishes it from list_assistants and find_assistants, which return collections. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling or contrasting scopes, so it is clear but not sibling-routing.
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 indication of when to use this versus find_assistants, list_assistants, or update_assistant. No prerequisites, no note about whether the id comes from a listing call, and no exclusions. The agent must infer usage entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.