Retrieve full details for an intake request by ID, including checklist items, upload progress, and file metadata to track client document submissions.
Retrieve full details for an intake request by ID, including checklist items, upload progress, and file metadata.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| requestId | Yes | The UUID of the intake request |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Retrieve' implies a read, but nothing states access or permission requirements, whether a missing/unauthorized requestId errors or returns empty, or how large the checklist/upload payload might be. It only lists what fields come back, which is the minimum.
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?
One sentence, zero waste, with the resource and lookup key front-loaded and the returned contents appended. Nothing is padded or repeated from the schema.
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 single-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description does well by enumerating the salient returned sections so the agent knows the record is detailed rather than a stub. The remaining gap is error/not-found behavior, which is minor but real given the absence of annotations.
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 coverage is 100% and the single requestId parameter is documented as a UUID in the schema itself. The description adds no format or provenance detail beyond 'by ID', so baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Retrieve full details for an intake request by ID') and enumerates the payload (checklist items, upload progress, file metadata), which distinguishes it from list_intake_requests. It stops short of explicitly naming that sibling, but the 'by ID' framing makes the single-record scope unambiguous.
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: an agent can infer this is the call to make once it has a requestId from list_intake_requests. There is no explicit 'use this when…' guidance and no mention of what to do when the ID is unknown or invalid.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.