jsonapi_sparse_fieldsetsRetrieve Drupal entities with only the fields you request, so JSON:API responses return sparse fieldsets and omit unneeded data.
Get entity with sparse fieldsets (only requested fields).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fields | Yes | ||
| entity_type | 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, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a read, but nothing is disclosed about permissions, how invalid entity_type or unknown field names are handled, or the JSON:API sparse-fieldset semantics beyond a short parenthetical. A read operation without any stated behavioral context is a significant gap.
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 short sentence with the core purpose front-loaded; it is well-sized and free of padding. It is arguably under-specified rather than over-long, which keeps it from being too verbose.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but with 0% parameter coverage, no annotations, and a domain (JSON:API sparse fieldsets) requiring format conventions, the description is too thin for the agent to call it correctly. Entity type and field naming conventions are entirely absent.
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% for both parameters. The description alludes to the 'fields' concept but never explains the expected format (e.g., machine field names) or the entity_type format (e.g., bundle/machine name), so it fails to compensate for the schema's total lack of descriptions.
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?
States a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('entity') and clarifies the mechanism with the parenthetical '(only requested fields)', so an agent understands it fetches a trimmed projection of an entity. However, it does not distinguish itself from closely related jsonapi siblings such as jsonapi_include_optimize or jsonapi_schema_get, leaving the agent to infer differentiation.
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 the other jsonapi_* siblings, and no prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.