Retrieve detailed information about a specific environment using its ID, enabling subsequent actions like listing organizations within that environment.
Get the environment details by ID (e.g. env_123). After providing details of environment details, the client can prompt to invoke list-organizations tool to list all organizations under the selected environment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| environmentId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether special permissions are needed, what output to expect, or any side effects. The follow-up note about invoking list-organizations adds minor context but not safety or behavioral clarity.
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?
The description is short and front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence is somewhat awkwardly worded and slightly redundant, but it does not significantly hurt usability.
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?
For a simple get-by-ID tool with one parameter spelt out with an example, this is minimally viable. However, the absence of any return-value or behavioral details, combined with no annotations, leaves the description incomplete for an agent that needs to know what 'details' means.
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 0%, but the description adds meaningful parameter context by identifying the ID concept and providing the example 'env_123', which aligns with the environmentId schema pattern. This is sufficient for the single required parameter.
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 action and resource: getting environment details by ID. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like get_organization_details and get_environment_credentials, though the word 'details' is somewhat generic.
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?
No clear guidance is given on when to choose this tool over siblings such as list_environments or get_environment_credentials. The only usage hint is a follow-up workflow mentioning list-organizations, which does not help the agent select this tool correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.