Fetch full markdown for a SORACOM documentation page. Also resolves API schema links. Exact URLs are attempted first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | A search-result URL, or the full URL of a `#/schema/<Name>` link from search_api_docs. Must start with http:// or https://; pass it exactly as returned. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context by stating it resolves API schema links and attempts exact URLs first, which goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.
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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence immediately states the core purpose, and the second adds a key detail. Every word earns its place.
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 simple read-only tool with one well-documented parameter and strong annotations, the description is nearly complete. It could mention the return format (e.g., markdown text) but is sufficient for its complexity.
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 description coverage is 100% and the schema's url parameter description is detailed. The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning to the parameter beyond what the schema already provides, 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?
The description clearly states the tool fetches full markdown for a SORACOM documentation page, which is a specific verb+resource. It also distinguishes from sibling search tools by mentioning it resolves API schema links and attempts exact URLs first, leaving no ambiguity about its role.
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 implies this tool is used after searching (e.g., with search_api_docs) to retrieve full content, but it does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives, nor does it provide any context about prerequisites or exclusions.
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 has a clearly distinct purpose: get_document fetches full pages, search_api_docs focuses on API/CLI/SAM, and search_soracom_docs covers service guides and console how-tos. No overlap in functionality.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with underscores (get_document, search_api_docs, search_soracom_docs). The naming is predictable and clear.
Three tools is slightly on the lower side but appropriate for a focused knowledge retrieval server. Each tool serves a necessary role, and the number feels well-scoped.
The tool set covers most retrieval needs: searching two distinct document types and fetching full pages. Minor gaps like listing all documents or browsing categories are absent, but the core workflow is complete.
