providers_clients_getRetrieve details for a specific client by provider ID and client ID, enabling lookups of client information and configuration within the UseGrant platform.
Get Client
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| clientId | Yes | Client ID | |
| providerId | Yes | Provider ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that — no mention of what is returned, whether a missing client errors or returns empty, or any auth scoping requirements.
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?
At two words it is trivially short but not concise in the useful sense — it is under-specified rather than efficient. There is no front-loaded scope statement or qualifier to anchor the agent.
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 two-parameter read, the schema and annotations cover most of the mechanics. However, with no output schema, the description should at least hint at what a 'Client' object contains or how a not-found case behaves, and it says nothing.
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 providerId and clientId are documented in the schema, and the description need not repeat them. Baseline 3 applies since the description neither adds nor undermines parameter meaning.
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?
Tautological: description restates name/title.
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 guidance at all about when to use this tool versus providers_clients_list, providers_get, or the tenant-scoped variants. The agent must infer the use case entirely from the tool name and sibling naming convention.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.