get_brain_sourceFetch one Brain source the authenticated user can see using its source_id. Read-only lookup for retrieving a specific knowledge source before processing or referencing it.
Fetch one source the authenticated user can see. Read operation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No | Named private Gumloop account; selects private credentials and user/team identity. | |
| source_id | Yes | The source id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Read operation' merely restates that. It does add the visibility-scoping constraint (only sources the user can see), which is mild extra context, but nothing about errors, missing sources, or response shape.
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, front-loaded sentences with zero padding. The core verb and scope appear first, and nothing is redundant beyond the terse 'Read operation' tag.
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 2-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the definition is minimally sufficient. It never indicates what a retrieved source contains or what happens when the id is invalid or inaccessible, which the description could reasonably cover.
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%, so both source_id and account are documented in the schema itself. The description contributes nothing beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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?
States a specific verb (Fetch) and resource (one source) with singular scope, which implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling list_brain_sources. However, it does not explicitly name that sibling or clarify what a 'source' is in this domain.
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?
Adds a visibility qualifier ('the authenticated user can see') but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives like list_brain_sources or search_brain. The agent must infer selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.