buffer_get_channelRetrieve details for a single Buffer channel by its channel ID. Use it to inspect a specific social account before scheduling or publishing posts.
Fetch a single channel by id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| channelId | Yes | Buffer channel id. |
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 and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no note on what happens for an unknown id, no auth/scope requirements, no indication of refresh or caching behavior. No contradiction, but no added context either.
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 clean, front-loaded sentence with the verb first and zero filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is a symptom of under-specification rather than deliberate density.
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 single-parameter read tool with annotations and no output schema, the essentials are present, but an agent still lacks the id source, not-found behavior, and any pointer to the related list/create/update channel tools. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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 coverage is 100% and the single channelId parameter is fully described there as 'Buffer channel id.' The description only restates that lookup is by id, adding no format, source, or validity details beyond the schema — the baseline 3 for high coverage.
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 specific verb and resource ('Fetch a single channel'), and the word 'single' implicitly contrasts with a bulk listing, so the agent can roughly tell it apart from buffer_list_channels. However, it never names the sibling, so differentiation stays implicit rather than explicit.
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 stated when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative. 'By id' hints that the caller must already hold an identifier, but the description never says where that id comes from (e.g., buffer_list_channels) or when to prefer this over the list/read siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.