Récupère le contenu complet d'un document MB Mastering à partir de son id (obtenu via search). / Fetches the full content of a document by id (from search results).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Identifiant du document renvoyé par search. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It fails to disclose behavioral traits such as whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or has rate limits. The description only states the action without additional transparency.
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 description is extremely concise with two short sentences (one in each language). No wasted words or redundancy.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (single parameter, no output schema), the description adequately states its purpose and source of input. It could be slightly more complete by specifying the format or type of full content, but overall sufficient.
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% with a description for 'id'. The tool description adds value by clarifying that the id comes from search results, which complements the schema's explanation.
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 clearly states the tool fetches full content of a document by id, specifying the resource ('document MB Mastering') and linking to search results, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_faq or get_pricing.
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 description indicates the tool should be used after search ('obtenu via search / from search results'), providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools.
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.
Each tool serves a distinct purpose: search/fetch for content, get_* for info categories, and quote-related tools for requests/admin. Minor overlap exists between get_pricing and get_services, which both mention tariffs, but they are otherwise clearly differentiated.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (get_faq, get_pricing, send_quote_request, prepare_quote_email), but 'fetch' and 'search' are bare verbs that deviate from the get_* style. All names are lowercase snake_case, so consistency is mostly preserved.
With 8 tools, the server is well-scoped for a studio information and quote integration. Each tool adds value without redundancy, and the count is within the ideal range.
The server covers all core needs: searching and retrieving content, accessing service/pricing/FAQ/studio info, requesting quotes, and preparing admin emails. No major dead ends or missing operations for the apparent domain.