arcadeops_get_documentRetourne le lien canonique et le type MIME d’un document public ArcadeOps identifié.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| document | Yes | Identifiant stable du document public à ouvrir. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already provide read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those hints by specifying that the document is public, and that the result is a canonical link plus MIME type, which tells the agent what kind of operation and response to expect.
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 one concise, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repeated information from the schema. It immediately communicates what the tool returns and for what kind of input.
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 lookup tool with annotations covering safety and idempotence, the description is mostly complete: it identifies the input and the output. It does not mention error behavior or explicitly point to sibling tools, but this is a low-complexity tool, so those are minor gaps.
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%: the single 'document' parameter is fully described as a stable identifier of a public document, and its enum lists valid values. The description does not add much beyond that, but the schema already does the necessary work, so the 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 states a specific verb ('Retourne' / returns) and a specific resource (a public ArcadeOps document), and it names the exact outputs: canonical link and MIME type. The word 'identifié' signals this is a get-by-identifier operation, which distinguishes it from the sibling discover and search tools.
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 clearly implies the tool is for a specific, already-known document ('un document public ArcadeOps identifié'), which is the right mental model for choosing this tool over arcadeops_discover or arcadeops_search_docs. However, it does not explicitly name those alternatives or state when not to use this tool.
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 role: discover provides the top-level public resources and endpoints, search_docs queries the catalog, and get_document resolves a specific document's canonical link and MIME type. There is no meaningful overlap or ambiguity between them.
All tool names share the arcadeops_ prefix and use snake_case, with a consistent verb-based style. The only minor inconsistency is that discover lacks an explicit object noun while get_document and search_docs both include one.
Three tools is well-scoped for a public discovery server: one for overview/discovery, one for searching the catalog, and one for retrieving a specific document's metadata. Each tool earns its place without redundancy.
The tool set covers the core discovery workflow: discover available resources, search the public catalog, and resolve a specific document link. A minor gap is the lack of a direct list-all-documents endpoint, but search by name and description addresses most practical discovery needs.