Retrieve an asset by ID, including its uncleared alarms, active work orders, and last completed work order.
One asset with its uncleared alarms, its active work orders and its last completed work order.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| asset_id | Yes | Asset id such as AST-0001. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| asset | Yes | ||
| active_alarms | Yes | ||
| open_work_orders | Yes | ||
| last_completed_work_order | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the operation read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds genuine scoping context beyond that: alarms are limited to 'uncleared' ones and work orders to 'active' plus the 'last completed' one, which tells the agent exactly what subset of related data to expect from a single read.
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 sentence fragment that front-loads the subject ('One asset') and then lists the included records with no filler. It is slightly clipped and verbless, but every word carries information.
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 shape need not be spelled out, and the description already defines which related records are included. For a single required-parameter read tool with full annotations, nothing essential is missing; only edge-case behavior (e.g., unknown asset_id) is unaddressed.
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?
The single asset_id parameter is fully documented in the schema with a concrete example format ('AST-0001'), and the description adds nothing about it. With 100% schema coverage and no new meaning contributed, this is the baseline 3.
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 names a specific resource (a single asset) and enumerates the exact related records bundled with it, which is more informative than a bare 'get'. However, it never states the verb explicitly and does not contrast itself with siblings like list_assets or get_plant_overview, so the agent must infer single-vs-list scope.
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 prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as list_assets (for many assets) or get_work_order (for detail on one work order). The agent gets no routing help at all.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.