Retrieve a CRM support case by case ID (e.g., CS-1001) to view its subject, customer description, status, account ID, order ID, and reason.
Fetch a support case (subject, customer description, status, account_id, order_id, reason). Case ids look like CS-1001.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| case_id | Yes | e.g. CS-1001 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the returned field list and id format, which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about error behavior for unknown ids or whether a missing case returns empty vs. throws.
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 zero waste: the verb and resource are front-loaded, and the id-format hint is placed at the end where it is most useful. Nothing is redundant.
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 single-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, returned fields, and id format adequately. The only gap is not describing behavior on invalid or unknown case ids.
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 case_id schema already supplies the 'e.g. CS-1001' example, which the description simply repeats. No additional syntax, validation, or constraint detail is added beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 and resource ('Fetch a support case') and enumerates the returned fields (subject, customer description, status, account_id, order_id, reason), making it clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_customer_profile and get_order by resource.
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 implied — retrieve a case by id — but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or reference to alternatives such as update_case for modifications or get_order for order data. The agent must infer the boundary itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.