get_form_field_placementFetch a specific form field placement by ID to inspect where a field is positioned in Rootly forms.
Retrieves a specific form_field_placement by id
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Required. ID of the form field placement (fills `{id}` in /v1/form_field_placements/{id}). Pass it as `id` -- this tool has no `form_field_placement_id` argument. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on not-found behavior, whether the id must be globally unique or scoped to a form set, or any other operational detail.
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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler, which is appropriately terse. It is underspecified rather than bloated, but nothing in it is wasteful.
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 one fully documented parameter, an output schema, and complete read-only annotations, the description is minimally sufficient for correct invocation. It nonetheless omits what the entity represents in the form/field hierarchy and any failure-mode context, which for a tool surrounded by many similarly named form-related getters is a real gap.
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 100% and the id parameter's schema text is unusually thorough, documenting the path template and even warning against a `form_field_placement_id` naming mistake. The description's "by id" phrasing aligns with the schema without adding anything further, 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 ("Retrieves") and resource ("form_field_placement") scoped by id, so the basic purpose is understandable. However, it is essentially a restatement of the tool name and does not distinguish this from sibling reads such as get_form_field, get_form_field_option, or get_form_field_placement_condition, leaving ambiguity about which entity is being fetched.
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 tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no note on what to do if the id is unknown. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and the single required parameter.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.