get_chat_ruleRetrieve the full content of a single chat rule by ID and workspace name to inspect a specific RunWhen workspace chat rule.
Get a single chat rule by ID (full content).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rule_id | Yes | The rule ID to retrieve. | |
| workspace_name | Yes | The workspace the rule 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 burden. It adds one useful behavioral detail ('full content'), distinguishing the response from a summary, but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or error behavior for a missing/unknown rule_id.
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 zero waste, front-loading the resource and its scoping qualifier. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.
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 no explanation, and both required parameters are fully documented in the schema. For a simple two-parameter read tool this is nearly complete; only auth/permission context is absent.
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% – both rule_id and workspace_name are documented in the schema, including an example workspace value. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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), resource (chat rule), and scope (single, by ID), and adds that it returns full content. This distinguishes it implicitly from list_chat_rules, though it never names 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 by the word 'single' – an agent can infer this is for fetching one known rule versus listing many. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing to list_chat_rules or update_chat_rule.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.