get_operation_schemaRetrieve reviewed method, path, query, and body schema plus provenance for one native Dub operation before building or validating a request.
Local reviewed method/path/query/body schema and provenance for one native tool. No credentials or provider request.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| operation | Yes | Exact native tool name, e.g. create_link or approve_program_application. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld=false, lowering the bar, yet the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: "No credentials or provider request" tells the agent this is a purely local lookup with no auth gate and no side-effecting provider call. "Provenance" and "reviewed" also hint that the returned schema is vetted rather than live-fetched.
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?
Two short sentences with zero filler, and the payload of what is returned is front-loaded. It is slightly over-compressed, forcing the reader to parse telegraphic phrasing, but nothing is wasted.
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 single-param introspection tool with annotations covering the safety profile, the description says what is returned and that the call is local. With no output schema, it still leaves the shape of the response and the meaning of "provenance" unexplained, so it is adequate rather than complete.
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 enum parameter is self-documenting with example values (create_link, approve_program_application). The description adds no further meaning about the operation argument beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 states a specific resource — "method/path/query/body schema and provenance for one native tool" — and the title verb "Inspect" frames it as introspection, which cleanly separates it from the sibling native tools it describes (create_link, approve_program_application). However, the compressed, jargon-heavy phrasing ("Local reviewed") takes a moment to decode and does not explicitly name how it relates to those siblings.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance and no condition that selects this tool over simply calling the native operation directly. The agent must infer that this is a pre-flight lookup for a named native tool, which is never stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.