get_operation_schemaRetrieve the local reviewed method, path, query, and body schema plus provenance for a specific native tool operation to build accurate requests.
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. update_testimonial or send_invites. |
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, and closed-world. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: it is the 'local reviewed' copy and requires no credentials or provider request, which tells the agent this is a side-effect-free metadata read rather than a live call. It stops short of describing the returned structure.
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 no filler: the first states what is returned, the second removes a likely misassumption (that a call might touch credentials or a provider). 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?
With no output schema, the description does sketch the return content (method/path/query/body schema plus provenance) and rules out auth or network side effects. It does not describe the shape or format of that schema object, leaving a small gap for a 1-parameter introspection tool.
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%, with an enumerated list of valid operation names and an example format, so the schema carries the parameter semantics. The description's 'for one native tool' reinforces that the single parameter selects an operation, matching the baseline for a fully documented schema.
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 (inspect/return) and resource (schema + provenance for one native operation), so an agent can tell this is a metadata lookup rather than an actual operation. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling operation tools (get_testimonial, update_testimonial, etc.), but 'for one native tool' plus the tool name make the distinction inferable.
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 explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. 'Local reviewed ... No credentials or provider request' hints that this is an offline introspection call, but the description never says to call it before invoking a native tool or how it relates to the sibling operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.