get_override_shiftRetrieves a specific override shift by ID, letting you view or manage assigned coverage.
Retrieves a specific override shift by id
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Required. ID of the override shift (fills `{id}` in /v1/override_shifts/{id}). Pass it as `id` -- this tool has no `override_shift_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 fully covered by structured data. The description adds no further behavior context (e.g., what happens on a missing ID, or which related objects are embedded), which is acceptable for a trivial read but earns no extra credit.
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 short sentence with the verb and lookup key front-loaded. No filler, no redundancy with the title.
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 and annotations cover the safety profile, so return values and side effects need not be described. For a one-parameter, single-resource getter the description is adequate, though it omits error/not-found behavior.
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 schema itself carries the useful note about passing the argument as `id` rather than `override_shift_id`. The description only echoes 'by id', adding nothing beyond the schema, so the 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Retrieves a specific override shift') plus the lookup key ('by id'), which distinguishes it from the list/create/update siblings in the same family. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the get-by-id framing is clear.
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: 'by id' signals that you already have a known override shift ID, which stands in contrast to list_override_shifts. No explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative appears in the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.