Get details about a named data source. Specify the data source name and optional profile to retrieve its configuration.
Get information about a specific data source.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| profile | No | Connection profile name. Omit to use the active default profile. Use 'list_connections' to see available profiles. | |
| data_source_name | Yes | Name of the data source. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description adds practically no behavioral context beyond the scope word 'specific.' It does not mention return format, authentication needs, or any other behavioral traits, so it adds little beyond the annotations.
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?
The description is one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the operation and its singular scope.
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 simple read-only lookup with documented parameters and safety annotations, the description is mostly adequate. However, there is no output schema and the description only says 'information,' leaving the return shape unspecified, which is a notable gap.
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 both parameters already have meaningful descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 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?
Description names the resource ('data source') and scopes the operation to 'a specific' one, which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling get_all_data_sources. The verb 'get' and singular scope make the purpose unmistakable.
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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus related siblings such as get_all_data_sources, preview_sample_data, or get_data_source_types. The word 'specific' implies a single-object lookup, but no alternatives or exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.