get_operation_schemaRetrieve the local schema for a Fourthwall API operation, including method, path, query, body, scopes, and rate limits. Use to validate requests before execution.
Local reviewed native method/path/query/body/scopes/rate limit and pinned schema provenance. No provider access or authority proof.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| operation | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds two genuinely useful facts beyond the annotations: it makes no provider/network call (local inspection only) and provides no authority or permission proof. However, it says nothing about output shape, freshness, or failure modes, so it adds only moderate behavioral context.
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 fragments with no waste, but the structure is cryptic rather than front-loaded. It is under-specified for its brevity, not over-long, so conciseness is fine but clarity suffers.
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?
With no output schema, the description does at least name the fields returned (method/path/query/body/scopes/rate limit/provenance). That is enough to signal a metadata-read tool, but the phrasing is fragmentary and omits what 'pinned schema provenance' and 'authority proof' concretely mean to a caller.
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 0%, but the single parameter is a fully-enumerated operation name list that is fairly self-documenting. The description's field list implies the return contents rather than the parameter's meaning, so it does not fully compensate for the coverage gap. A baseline 3 is appropriate for an enum parameter that documents 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 hints that the tool returns a locally-stored contract for an operation (method/path/query/body/scopes/rate limit and schema provenance), but it is a noun-phrase fragment rather than a clear verb+resource statement. An agent can infer it is a metadata lookup rather than a live API call, but the purpose is not stated plainly. Sibling tools like get_webhook or get_product are concrete actions; this one is not differentiated in plain language.
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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives or prerequisites. The trailing disclaimer ('No provider access or authority proof') clarifies limits but does not tell the agent when this tool should be chosen over a sibling that actually performs the operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.