Fetch detailed information about a client organisation using its client ID. This tool returns the client's specifics for reference or further processing.
Get details of a specific client organisation.
Args: client_id: The client/organisation ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| client_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get details', which implies a read-only operation, but it does not mention authentication requirements, error behavior, response format, or potential side effects. The presence of an output schema is not leveraged in the description. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 extremely short and front-loaded, which is efficient. However, it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. Every sentence is present, but the content is minimal. It earns a middle score because it avoids redundancy but lacks necessary context.
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 tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not mention prerequisites like authentication, does not clarify what 'details' encompass, and does not reference the output schema. The agent would have to infer or inspect the schema to understand the return value. Given the tool's simplicity, this may be acceptable for a basic GET, but the lack of any behavioral or usage context makes it inadequate for robust tool selection.
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?
The description repeats the parameter name and adds minimal clarification ('The client/organisation ID'), but schema coverage is 0%, meaning the description must compensate. It does not provide the format, source, or how to obtain a valid client_id. The added phrase is barely more informative than the property name itself.
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 action ('Get details') and the resource ('a specific client organisation'). It is specific and distinguishable from sibling tools like wetrack_get_user or wetrack_get_ticket by explicitly naming the client organisation. However, it does not elaborate on what 'details' include.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as wetrack_list_organisations or wetrack_get_user. The description only states the action and parameter, leaving the agent to infer that it is used when a client_id is known and detailed information is needed. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.