Get Tool
lyzr_get_toolRetrieve tool details by ID from the Lyzr MCP server to access its configuration and capabilities.
Instructions
Fetch a tool by id.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tool_id | Yes | The tool id to fetch |
lyzr_get_toolRetrieve tool details by ID from the Lyzr MCP server to access its configuration and capabilities.
Fetch a tool by id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tool_id | Yes | The tool id to fetch |
Does 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 clear. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as return format, error handling, or prerequisites. It is neutral and non-contradictory.
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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity and fully 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 fetch-by-id tool with one parameter, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description is nearly complete. It does not explicitly state the return value, but 'fetch a tool' implicitly conveys that the tool object is returned. This minor gap prevents a perfect score.
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% for the only parameter, tool_id, which is described as 'The tool id to fetch'. The description 'Fetch a tool by id' adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 uses the specific verb 'Fetch' with the resource 'tool' and scope 'by id', clearly distinguishing from listing tools or fetching other entities. It precisely states what the tool does.
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 phrase 'by id' implies it is for retrieving a specific tool when the ID is known, but there is no explicit mention of alternatives like lyzr_list_tools or when not to use it. Usage context is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/nandanNM/lyzr-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server