Get one document by the Core document ID that list-documents returns. Returns document with only its id and name, the same two fields as list-documents; it does not return file contents, links, status or extracted details. The call fails if the document does not exist or the user cannot see it. Core document IDs are not the acDocumentId values that transaction tools use.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Core document ID, as returned by list-documents |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / id / descriptionPrevious value: -"Document ID"New value: +"Core document ID, as returned by list-documents"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds substantive context on top: the response is limited to id and name only, explicitly excluding file contents, links, status and extracted details, and it discloses two failure conditions (document missing or not visible to the user). That is real behavioral value beyond the structured fields.
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?
Four short sentences, each carrying distinct information: purpose, ID source, return shape limits, failure modes, and ID-type disambiguation. Front-loaded with the core action and zero filler.
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?
With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating exactly which fields are returned and which are not, plus the error behavior. For a single-parameter read tool this is fully sufficient to invoke correctly.
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 param is self-documenting, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by defining what the ID is (Core document ID from list-documents) and, critically, what it is NOT (acDocumentId), preventing a common mis-invocation.
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+resource (get one document) and immediately scopes it by the Core document ID that list-documents returns. It also disambiguates from transaction tools by noting Core IDs are not acDocumentId values, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like get-invoice-document-links or search-accounting-transactions without opening schemas.
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?
Gives clear context: the ID must come from list-documents, and explicitly warns that acDocumentId values (used by transaction tools) will not work here. It does not spell out a when-not/alternative beyond that ID-source rule, but the routing condition is unambiguous.
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.