Retrieve details for a specific Datafence file export request using fence, box, and file export IDs. Check export status or configuration.
Get a file export request.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| boxId | Yes | Box number (see ncloud_datafence_list_boxes) | |
| fileId | Yes | Export request number (see ncloud_datafence_list_file_exports) | |
| fenceId | Yes | Datafence number (see ncloud_datafence_get_datafence) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is already covered. The description adds nothing beyond the name – no return shape, no pagination, no status semantics for an export request. With annotations carrying the safety profile, a 3 is the correct floor, but there is no extra behavioral context.
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, front-loaded and free of filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple read tool, though it borders on under-specification rather than being impressively efficient.
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?
The tool has 3 required parameters, no output schema, and no nesting. Given the schema fully documents the parameters and annotations cover safety, the description is minimally adequate. However, for an 'export request' that has an approval workflow among siblings, an agent would benefit from knowing it returns the request's status; the description leaves that gap.
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%, and each parameter description in the schema points to a sibling lookup tool (list_boxes, list_file_exports, get_datafence). The description adds no parameter information. Per the calibration rule, 100% coverage yields a baseline of 3; the description neither helps nor hurts.
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 verb (Get) and resource (file export request), which is clear and distinguishable within the datafence file export tool family (create/cancel/list). It doesn't name a sibling alternative, but the resource is specific enough that an agent can distinguish it from ncloud_datafence_list_file_exports and ncloud_datafence_create_file_export.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (list_file_exports, get_file_import, get_export_approval), and no preconditions. The description is a bare statement of purpose. For a tool in a large family with closely named siblings, this forces the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.