Retrieve details of a funded gig by ID, including status, deadline, brief, and delivery, to track work progress.
A funded gig: status, deadline, the brief, and the delivery (visible to its employer and worker).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| gigId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the returned fields and visibility restriction, but does not state that this is a read-only operation, what authorization is required, or what happens for unauthorized users or missing IDs.
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 definition is a single, efficient sentence with no filler. It front-loads the resource and lists returned fields compactly, though the sentence fragment style slightly weakens clarity.
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 read-by-ID tool with no output schema or annotations, the description gives useful return-field context and visibility scope. However, it omits the required gigId parameter and does not cover read-only behavior, leaving gaps an agent must infer from structured fields.
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?
The sole parameter gigId is not mentioned in the description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The parameter name is fairly self-explanatory, but the description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation or clarify the ID's expected format.
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 names a specific resource (a funded gig) and lists the fields it exposes, but it lacks an action verb such as 'retrieve' or 'get'. The parenthetical access note distinguishes it somewhat from a public gig post, yet the overall purpose is stated as a noun phrase rather than a clear operation.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_gig_post or list_gig_posts. The visibility note ('visible to its employer and worker') describes access scope, not selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.