Fetch one portfolio document by id (the page path from search): id, title, text (the page as Markdown), url, metadata.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"id": "<id>"
},
"name": "fetch"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. 'Fetch' implies a non-mutating read, and the description usefully enumerates the returned payload (id, title, text as Markdown, url, metadata), which substitutes for the absent output schema. It says nothing about permissions, error behavior on unknown ids, or size/length limits on the returned text.
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 sentence with zero filler, front-loading the verb and resource before the parameter clarification and the return-field list. Every clause carries information.
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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essentials: what it returns and where the id comes from. The remaining gap is differentiation from get_page, which an agent selecting between the two would still have to guess at.
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 0% — the id property is a bare string with no documentation — so the description must compensate, and it does: 'the page path from search' tells the agent exactly what value to supply and where to obtain it. It stops short of giving format examples or saying whether the path is URL-encoded.
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 one portfolio document by id. It clearly scopes to a single document rather than a listing, and 'from search' hints at the retrieval flow. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling get_page, which reads as a near-synonym to an agent scanning the tool list.
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 page path from search' implies the intended flow (search first, then fetch the id it returns), which is real usage context. But there is no explicit when-to-use versus get_page or search_portfolio, and no statement of what happens for a missing or invalid id.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.