Retrieve a single compliance request for information to see why it was raised, its requirements, and how to answer each item.
Get one compliance request for information (RFI): why it was raised, its requirements and how to answer each.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rfiId | Yes | The RFI ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get' plus the content preview establishes a read-only retrieval, which is useful, but it says nothing about permission requirements, behavior on an unknown/closed RFI ID, or sensitivity of compliance data.
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 sentence with the verb and scope front-loaded and a compact clause enumerating the response contents. Nothing is wasted and nothing needs to be trimmed.
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 no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the essentials and even characterizes the return payload. It falls short only on permission/error behavior, which is a minor gap at this complexity.
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?
One parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents rfiId as 'The RFI ID' and the baseline is 3. The description adds no format, sourcing (e.g., obtained via list_rfis), or validity detail beyond that.
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 ('Get one ... RFI'), expands the acronym, and previews the returned content (why raised, requirements, how to answer). It implicitly distinguishes itself from list_rfis/list_customer_rfis by scoping to a single request, though it never names those siblings explicitly.
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: 'one' suggests singular retrieval versus the list_* siblings, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of what precondition (e.g., needing an existing rfiId from list_rfis) applies, and no named alternative for the plural case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.