get_opportunityGet complete details for a specific pipeline opportunity by ID, including notes and activity history.
Get detailed information about a specific pipeline opportunity/deal, including notes and activity history.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| opportunity_id | Yes | Opportunity/project ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the return scope (notes and activity history) but does not disclose other behavioral details such as what happens for invalid IDs or required permissions. This is adequate given the annotation coverage, but adds limited new 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?
A single, front-loaded sentence that states the action, resource, and included content with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple read tool.
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 one-parameter read operation with safety annotations, the description is largely complete: it names the specific resource and the expected data scope. It could additionally mention how to handle nonexistent IDs or how returned data relates to the input ID, but these are minor gaps for such a simple 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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter ('Opportunity/project ID'), so the description does not need to add parameter details. It does not add extra semantics beyond the schema, which matches the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('specific pipeline opportunity/deal'), and further clarifies the scope by mentioning notes and activity history. This clearly distinguishes it from list_opportunities (plural, list orientation) and other project/opportunity tools.
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?
The description implies the tool is for fetching details about a single opportunity, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like list_opportunities or get_projects. No exclusions or alternative tool names are provided, so the usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.