Retrieve details for a specific OAuth2 application by UUID to inspect its configuration and settings.
Get details of a specific OAuth2 application by its UUID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uuid | Yes | OAuth2 app UUID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.17Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond those annotations, such as what 'details' includes or whether missing UUIDs produce an error, but with annotations present this level is adequate.
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 single, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It communicates the action and the lookup key immediately.
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 simple read-only lookup with one fully documented parameter and rich annotations, the description is sufficient to select and invoke the tool. Its only mild gap is that 'details' is vague about what fields are returned, and there is no output schema to fill that in.
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 the single uuid parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description only restates that lookup is by UUID, adding no format, example, or validation 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 details of a specific OAuth2 application.' The phrase 'by its UUID' narrows the scope enough to distinguish it from a list operation, though it does not explicitly name the sibling tool oauth2_clients_list.
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 the tool should be used when the caller already has an OAuth2 app UUID, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternative tool recommendation such as using oauth2_clients_list when the UUID is unknown.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.