Fetch a single channel by row ID or connected account ID to inspect its details.
One channel by row id or by the connected account id (POST /api/kalagh/channels/get · gRPC GetChannel · socket "channels/get")
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | The channel row id | |
| platformId | No | The account the channel is connected as (own JID / user_id) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only transport plumbing (POST path, gRPC method, socket channel) and no behavioral context such as error handling, missing-channel behavior, or whether both lookup keys may be combined.
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?
Extremely terse and front-loaded: purpose first, transport mapping second. The endpoint/gRPC/socket detail is arguably marginal for an agent, but the whole thing is two lines with no filler.
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 read tool with full schema coverage and annotations carrying the safety profile, this is nearly adequate. The key gap is the 'at least one of id/platformId' contract implied by 0 required parameters, which is left unexplained.
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%, with each parameter documented and exampled, so baseline is 3. The description reinforces the two lookup modes but adds no rule about precedence or mutual exclusivity, which matters given there are 0 required parameters.
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 resource (one channel) and the two lookup keys (row id or connected account id), which implicitly contrasts with channels_list. However, it never names a sibling tool or says 'retrieve' explicitly, so differentiation depends on the reader inferring it from 'One channel'.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as channels_list, and no statement about which key should be preferred or what happens if both or neither id is supplied. The agent gets no routing help beyond the one-line purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.