field_config_getRetrieve a single Drupal field configuration by its config ID to inspect field settings, labels, and types during site development or debugging.
Get a single field configuration by ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| include | No | ||
| config_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description relies on the word 'Get' to imply a read-only operation. It does not disclose permissions, error behavior for missing IDs, or any side effects, though for a simple read tool this is a minimal viable disclosure. The presence of an output schema means return values need not be explained.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple get operation and contains no filler.
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?
Given 2 parameters at 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to document the 'include' parameter or explain how it affects the response, leaving a gap that an agent would need to resolve by guessing.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter documentation. It explains that 'config_id' is used to identify the configuration, but it completely omits the 'include' parameter, which is undocumented in both the schema and the description.
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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Get a single field configuration by ID.' It distinguishes itself from siblings like field_config_list, field_config_update, and field_config_delete by specifying a single entity retrieved by ID. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from other get tools such as config_get or field_storage_get.
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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as field_config_list or config_get. It only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context without any explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.