get_postRetrieve a single Mattermost post by its ID to read the exact message content from a channel, thread, or direct conversation.
Get a single post by ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| post_id | Yes | The post ID. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and idempotency profile is fully covered externally. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that (no note on what happens with missing/deleted IDs or access restrictions), so it neither helps nor contradicts.
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?
One short, front-loaded sentence with zero waste and the identifier is stated immediately. It is appropriately sized, though it could have spent a clause on disambiguation at no real cost.
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?
The tool is simple with one required parameter and an output schema, so return-value explanation is unnecessary. However, given many overlapping read siblings (get_thread, get_channel_posts, search_posts, get_pinned_posts), the description is not complete enough to route the agent confidently.
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 the single post_id parameter is documented in the schema, so the description's restatement of 'by ID' adds nothing new. Baseline 3 applies 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?
Specific verb+resource: 'Get a single post by ID' clearly states retrieving one post identified by ID. It does not differentiate from siblings like get_thread, get_channel_posts, or search_posts, which an agent must distinguish when deciding between single-post retrieval and thread/channel listing.
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 on when to use this versus alternatives such as search_posts or get_thread. The only implied usage is 'you have a post ID,' which is left for the agent to infer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.