Execute a RomM API read by discovered operation ID, then paginate or select response fields for targeted library data.
Invoke a read operation by discovered ID. Select/paginate output with request fields.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| request | No | ||
| operation_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only 'Select/paginate output with request fields,' which hints at pagination but says nothing about how request fields (auth_mode, download, response_pointer, etc.) alter behavior — the biggest behavioral unknowns for this tool.
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?
Two short sentences with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. But the brevity is under-specification rather than genuine conciseness given the tool's complexity, and the second sentence is vague about which request fields do what.
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 explained. Still, for a dynamic dispatcher with a large nested request object at 0% schema coverage, the description leaves the agent unable to construct a valid request or know how to discover the operation_id.
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 0%: neither operation_id nor any of the many APIRequest properties are documented beyond bare titles. The description mentions a 'discovered ID' and 'request fields' to select/paginate, but does not explain the meaning of limit/offset, auth_mode, download, or response_pointer, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 names a specific verb+resource ('invoke a read operation') and identifies the key input ('discovered ID'), so the agent knows this is a read dispatcher. However, it does not distinguish this tool from its siblings, especially romm_api_list or romm_api_describe, which likely share the same dynamic-dispatch pattern.
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?
The phrase 'by discovered ID' faintly implies the operation_id must first be obtained (presumably via romm_api_describe), but no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative is stated. An agent has no guidance on choosing this over romm_api_list or the dedicated get_rom/get_collection tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.