Retrieve full tag details by stable ID, including path, parent, status, and child tags. Solves the need to inspect tag hierarchy in OmniFocus.
Get full detail for a tag by its stable ID. Returns path, parentId, status, and child tag IDs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The tag's id.primaryKey |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It explicitly conveys a read-only operation via 'Get' and discloses the returned fields, which is the main behavioral context for a simple getter. It does not mention error behavior or auth, but nothing suggests hidden side effects.
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 a compact two-sentence definition with no redundant fluff. The action and resource appear first, followed by the return payload, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.
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?
This is a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema. The description sufficiently defines the lookup key and enumerates the returned fields, giving an agent everything needed to invoke and interpret the result correctly.
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 for the single parameter is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the 'stable ID' nuance, reinforcing that the ID should not change, but it does not explain how to obtain the ID or anything beyond the schema. It meets but does not raise the baseline.
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 clearly states the verb 'Get', the resource 'tag', and the retrieval key 'stable ID'. It also specifies what 'full detail' includes (path, parentId, status, child tag IDs), making it distinguishable from list_tags and other sibling tag tools.
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 its stable ID' and 'full detail' clearly indicate when to use this tool: when a specific tag ID is known and complete detail is needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough to guide selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.