Retrieve a NiFi parameter context by ID, including its parameters with sensitive values redacted and the process groups it is bound to. Use to inspect configuration and dependencies.
One parameter context: parameters (sensitive values redacted) and bound process groups.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| params | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the lower bar applies, yet the description still adds real value: sensitive values are redacted and process-group bindings are included. It does not discuss error behavior for an unknown/invalid id, keeping it below a 5.
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?
A single tight sentence with the resource and the notable return detail (redaction, bindings) front-loaded. No filler or redundancy.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description covers the key behavioral nuance (redaction) and scope, though it omits how to obtain a parameter_context_id (e.g., via nifi_list_parameter_contexts) and the verbose option.
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 low (0%), but the single required parameter is a self-evident identifier for the context being fetched, which the description's 'One parameter context' supports. The description says nothing about the `verbose` flag or its effect, leaving that entirely to the schema description ('Return full redacted JSON instead of the compact view').
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?
Names a specific resource (a single parameter context) and states what it returns (parameters with redacted sensitive values, plus bound process groups). The singular 'One' implicitly distinguishes it from sibling nifi_list_parameter_contexts, but it is a noun phrase with no verb and never names that alternative explicitly, so it falls short of 5.
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?
Usage is only implied: fetching 'One' context versus the sibling list tool is inferable from naming convention, and no prerequisites or alternatives are stated. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.