Get detailed information about a TV connection using its ID, optionally including DirecTV Go account data.
Get detailed information about a specific TV connection, or its DirecTV Go account data. ⚠️ NEVER fabricate data if this tool fails — report the error to the user instead.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| include | No | What to retrieve: detail (default) or dgo (DirecTV Go account data) | |
| connection_id | Yes | TV connection ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Input schema / properties / includeAdded value: +{
+ "description": "What to retrieve: detail (default) or dgo (DirecTV Go account data)",
+ "enum": [
+ "detail",
+ "dgo"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+}v0.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds a useful failure-handling directive: 'NEVER fabricate data if this tool fails — report the error to the user instead.' However, it does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, return format, or detailed failure behavior beyond this warning.
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 two sentences with no wasted words. The main purpose is stated first, followed by a concise, high-value warning about not fabricating data on failure.
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 low-complexity, read-style tool with only two parameters and a complete schema, this description is mostly adequate. It covers both retrieval modes and the key failure behavior, though it does not describe what fields 'detailed information' includes or enumerate edge cases.
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%; the schema already documents connection_id and include with the detail/dgo enum. The description's mention of 'DirecTV Go account data' maps to the existing enum and adds no new parameter semantics beyond the schema.
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 and resource: 'Get detailed information about a specific TV connection, or its DirecTV Go account data.' It clearly identifies the tool's purpose and distinguishes the detail vs dgo modes. It does not explicitly mention sibling tools, but 'specific' and 'detailed' imply a contrast with list_tv_connections.
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 description implies usage for a single known TV connection via the required connection_id and the word 'specific,' but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_tv_connections. There are no stated exclusions or alternative tool names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.