fetchRetrieve the full text of one BlackOps note or blog post by its search id.
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 | Record id from search, e.g. "note:<uuid>". |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint=true annotation already establishes the safe-read profile, so the description only needs to add context. It does contribute that the result is the *full text* of a single record (as opposed to a preview or list), but says nothing about truncation, size limits, or behavior when the id refers to a deleted record.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. The scope qualifier (one record, full text) appears before the id reference, so the key constraint is read first.
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 a documented schema and no output schema, the description covers the essentials of what comes back. The remaining gap is routing: with get_note, get_post, and search all in the sibling set, an agent has no stated basis for choosing this tool over those.
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 id parameter already documents the "note:<uuid>" format. The description adds only the framing that the id comes from a search, which is marginal but real added meaning; baseline 3 applies.
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 gives a specific verb+resource ("Retrieve the full text of one BlackOps note or blog post") and clarifies that the generic name "fetch" covers two content types. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling tools get_note and get_post, which appear to return overlapping content.
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?
"by its search id" implies this is a follow-up to the search tool for fetching a full document, which is useful implied guidance. But it never states when to prefer this over get_note/get_post, nor any exclusions or failure conditions for a stale or malformed 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.