Retrieves a single CV-CUE location by ID, returning its full path and immediate child locations so you can inspect or navigate the Wi-Fi site hierarchy.
Get one location with its path and direct children.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| location_id | Yes | Location id (from cvcue_list_locations) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful return-shape behavior (path plus direct children, implying children are one level deep and not recursive), but says nothing about permissions, error behavior for an unknown ID, or whether children are full objects or references.
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 nine-word sentence with the resource and the return contents front-loaded. Nothing is wasted and nothing is buried.
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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is fetched and roughly what comes back. Minor gaps remain around the depth/format of 'direct children' and failure modes, but nothing critical to calling it correctly is missing.
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 100% and the single parameter's schema description already points to cvcue_list_locations as the source of IDs. The tool description adds no further meaning about location_id, 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 (Get) and resource (location) with explicit scope: a single location, returned with its path and direct children. That distinguishes it from the sibling cvcue_list_locations, though the description never names that sibling directly.
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: 'Get one location' suggests fetching details for a known ID rather than enumerating locations. There is no explicit when-to-use, no mention of cvcue_list_locations as the discovery alternative, and no stated preconditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.