fetchRetrieve the full text of one document by the id returned from search.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Document id from search results |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| url | Yes | ||
| text | Yes | ||
| title | Yes | ||
| metadata | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "id": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "metadata": {
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "text": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "title": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "url": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "id",
+ "title",
+ "text",
+ "url"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds useful context by specifying that the tool returns the full text of one document rather than metadata or a list. There is no contradiction with annotations.
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 a single sentence, efficient and front-loaded with the action ('Retrieve the full text') and resource ('one document'), followed by the key input source. Every word adds value; there is no wasted text.
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 one-parameter read-only tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description is complete. It says what is fetched, how many documents, and where the id comes from. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it 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?
The schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter with the description 'Document id from search results'. The tool description reinforces this by saying 'id returned from search', but adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema.
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 a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve the full text of one document' by id. It differentiates from search/list tools by specifying a single document and full text, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 'get_article', which may serve a similar purpose.
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?
It gives clear usage context: use this tool with an id that comes from `search`. This implies the intended flow of search-then-fetch. However, it does not mention when to prefer this over sibling tools like `get_article`, nor does it state exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.