Read one doc from search_docs in full, by id or URL. No key.
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_doc"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | An id or URL from search_docs. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two useful traits: the result is the full document (not a snippet) and 'No key' suggests no authentication is needed. However, it never states read-only safety, error behavior for invalid ids, or what format the full content arrives in.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, with no wasted clauses. The trailing 'No key' is terse to the point of ambiguity but does not bloat the definition.
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 full schema coverage, the definition covers the essentials: which source the id comes from and that the whole document is returned. Without an output schema, a brief note on result format would have closed the last gap.
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 parameter is already documented as 'An id or URL from search_docs.' The description's 'by id or URL' merely restates the schema rather than adding format, validation, or provenance detail, so 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Read one doc') with scope ('in full') and ties itself directly to the sibling search_docs, so an agent can tell it apart from search_docs and the generic fetch. It stops short of a 5 only because 'doc' is never expanded (documentation page? file?) beyond the sibling reference.
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?
'from search_docs' implies the intended workflow: find an id via search_docs, then read it here. There is no explicit statement of when not to use it, nor mention of alternatives such as search or fetch, so usage is only implied.
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.