Retrieve a scheduled instruction by its integer ID to inspect its configuration, schedule, and status in one call.
Get a Scheduled Instruction by integer ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Integer ID |
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 behavioral burden, and 'Get' makes the read-only nature clear. It does not describe handling for missing IDs, error responses, or exact return content, but for a simple get-by-id lookup there are no hidden side effects or pagination concerns.
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 sentence with no filler or redundant qualifiers. It front-loads the verb and resource, making it immediately scannable for an agent.
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 one-parameter get-by-id tool, this description plus the schema is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. It does not describe return fields or failure behavior, but the lack of an output schema and the low complexity make those details non-critical.
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 input schema already documents the only parameter, 'id', with type and description at 100% coverage. The description's phrase 'integer ID' adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 operation: 'Get a Scheduled Instruction by integer ID.' It names a specific verb, resource, and lookup key, which is enough to distinguish it from search, create, update, and delete siblings. It does not explicitly compare itself to other get-by-id tools, but the resource name plus the tool name makes the purpose unambiguous.
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 intended use is implied: call this when you have an integer ID and need a single Scheduled Instruction. However, the description does not explicitly say to use scheduled_instructions_search when the ID is unknown, nor does it mention any exclusions, so usage guidance is only implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.