machines_getRetrieve a specific Omnara machine by its machine ID and organization ID for inspection or management.
Get machine
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| orgID | Yes | ||
| machineID | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds nothing beyond that — no mention of auth requirements, error behavior for a missing machineID, or what happens with an orgID the caller can't access.
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?
Two words is not conciseness in a useful sense — it is under-specification. There is no front-loaded scope, precondition, or return information to earn 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 two-required-parameter lookup with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the definition should at minimum say what is retrieved and how the two identifiers relate. Neither is present, leaving the agent to infer everything except the safety hints.
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%: the two required parameters carry only regex patterns, no prose. The description does not explain that machineID identifies the machine and orgID scopes the lookup, so nothing compensates for the schema gap, though the parameter names are largely self-evident.
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?
Tautological: description restates name/title.
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 guidance on when to use this versus machines_list, machines_update, or grant_machines_list. The agent must infer the retrieval use case purely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.