get_documentRead one document by id. The stored fields are under .data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| db | Yes | The database URL returned at creation (or its bare s-... capability). | |
| id | Yes | Document id (doc_...). | |
| collection | Yes | Collection name (created implicitly on first write). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions reading by id and field location, but omits authorization needs, error behavior (e.g., missing doc), or side effects. Minimal 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?
Two sentences, no redundancy. Very brief, which is efficient, but could include more detail without being verbose. Slightly under-specified for completeness.
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 3 required params, no output schema, no annotations, and many sibling tools, the description lacks details on return format, error handling, and use case differentiation. Incomplete for effective agent selection.
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 covers all 3 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds no extra meaning beyond 'by id' linking, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 it reads one document by id and mentions that stored fields are under .data, which distinguishes it from list_documents or delete_document. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_documents). No prerequisites or context of use are provided.
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, with descriptions that differentiate similar operations (e.g., create_database vs pro_create_database vs pro_attach_database). Agents can easily select the correct tool.
Most tools follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern, but 'database_status' is noun_verb. The 'pro_' prefix is consistently used for Pro account tools. Overall pattern is clear and predictable.
16 tools cover the full lifecycle of temporary databases, document CRUD, collection management, and Pro account operations. Each tool is justified and the count feels well-scoped for the domain.
The tool surface provides complete CRUD for documents, database lifecycle (create, delete, extend, status), and full Pro account management (checkout, cancel, create, attach, list). No obvious gaps for the stated purpose.