Fetch a Salesforce record by object type and ID after user approval, giving AI assistants approved access to Account, Contact, or Opportunity data through PrivacyFence.
Fetch a Salesforce record by object type and id. Requires user approval.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reason | Yes | One sentence: why are you calling this tool right now? | |
| record_id | Yes | ||
| object_type | Yes | e.g. Account, Contact, Opportunity |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v5.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, so the added value here is 'Requires user approval' — a genuine behavioral constraint not derivable from the annotations and relevant given the privacyfence approval tools in the sibling set. It stops short of saying how approval is obtained or what happens if it is denied.
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 short sentences with zero filler, and the core operation is front-loaded ahead of the approval caveat.
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?
With no output schema, the description does not indicate what a fetched record returns (field set, format, depth). The approval requirement is flagged but the mechanics are left implicit for a three-required-parameter tool with an unusual gating flow.
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 67% and the description only restates the object_type and record_id parameters ('by object type and id') without adding format, casing, or id-syntax details. The 'reason' parameter is documented only in the schema, so the description adds little beyond the baseline.
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 verb (Fetch) and resource (Salesforce record) with the lookup key (object type and id). It is distinguishable from salesforce_search because it fetches a single known record, though it does not name that sibling explicitly.
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 implied by the 'by object type and id' framing, so an agent can infer this is for when the id is already known. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no comparison against salesforce_search or salesforce_run_report for the case where the id is unknown.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.