redirect_getRetrieve a Drupal redirect configuration by ID to inspect its destination, status, and settings for URL management.
Get a single redirect configuration by ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| include | No | ||
| redirect_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, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Get' clearly implies a read-only operation, but the description does not mention authentication needs or error behavior when the ID is missing or invalid.
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 with no filler. Every part of the sentence contributes to identifying the tool and its primary input.
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 and has an output schema, so return values need not be described. However, the include parameter is undocumented and no annotations exist, leaving a gap for an agent trying to use the tool fully.
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 document both parameters. It indicates that redirect_id is an ID lookup, but the include parameter is completely unmentioned and remains opaque to the agent.
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 specific verb (Get), resource (redirect configuration), scope (single), and lookup key (by ID). It clearly distinguishes from redirect_list by specifying a single item, and from redirect_create/update/delete by using '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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives like redirect_list. The 'by ID' phrasing implies a lookup scenario but does not state when this tool should be chosen over listing or searching.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.