get_chat_commandRetrieve the full content of a specific workspace chat command by its ID and workspace name, so you can review or reuse the exact command.
Get a single chat command by ID (full content).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| command_id | Yes | The command ID to retrieve. | |
| workspace_name | Yes | The workspace the command belongs to (e.g. 't-oncall'). |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only adds '(full content)'. It says nothing about read-only safety, workspace scoping requirements, permissions, or error behavior when an ID is absent.
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 no filler; the key scoping information appears before the parenthetical detail.
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 values need not be described, and both parameters are fully documented in the schema. Only the absence of any behavioral/permission context keeps this from being complete.
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%, so both command_id and workspace_name are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond that 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 (get), a specific resource (chat command), and scoping (single, by ID) plus a cue about response depth ('full content'). This differentiates it from list_chat_commands, though it doesn't 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 only implied: retrieve by ID when the full command content is needed, versus a listing. No explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternative such as list_chat_commands is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.