kite-connect-mcp

One GTT

get_gtt

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a specific GTT by trigger_id to inspect its type, status, condition, placed orders, and order result after firing.

Instructions

One GTT by its trigger_id, whatever its age or status: type, status, condition, the orders it places and the result of the order if the trigger fired.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "trigger_id": "<trigger_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_gtt"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`trigger_id`	Yes	the GTT's trigger_id (see get_gtts)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: results are not limited by age or status, and — with no output schema present — it lists the returned fields including the outcome of the order if the trigger fired.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and lookup key come first, followed by the payload. The trailing field enumeration is slightly list-heavy but each item carries information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter read tool with full schema documentation and rich annotations, the definition covers scope and return content adequately. The only gap is failure behavior for an unknown or stale trigger_id, which an agent might want before calling.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema property itself explains that trigger_id can be sourced via get_gtts. The description only restates 'by its trigger_id' and adds no format, validity, or error semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific retrieval of a single GTT keyed by trigger_id and enumerates what the caller gets back (type, status, condition, placed orders, fired-order result). The singular 'One GTT' implicitly contrasts with the sibling get_gtts list tool, though it does not name that sibling explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Implied usage is clear: call it when you already hold a trigger_id and need that one GTT's detail. The phrase 'whatever its age or status' usefully signals no time-window or status filtering is required, but there is no explicit when-not or alternative route (e.g. 'use get_gtts to discover trigger_ids / filter by status').

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.