public-evidence_get_documentGet one document from an immutable snapshot. Citation locators are source-provided, position-based h2/h3 ID fragments and are valid only within the snapshot that produced them.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| as_of | No | ||
| document_id | Yes | ||
| snapshot_id | No |
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 readOnlyHint annotation signals a safe read operation, and the description reinforces this with 'Get' and 'immutable snapshot'. No destructive behavior is implied or described, so there is no contradiction.
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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence about citation locators is relevant but somewhat specialized and may distract from the primary retrieval function.
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?
The description mentions immutable snapshots and citation locators but does not explain expected return content, error behavior, or how the parameters interact. Since there is no output schema and zero schema description coverage, the tool definition leaves important operational context unclear.
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 input schema has no parameter descriptions, and the description does not explain as_of or snapshot_id semantics. document_id is self-explanatory, but the temporal and snapshot-selection parameters remain ambiguous, especially without an output schema to clarify their roles.
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 retrieves a single document from an immutable snapshot, giving a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_document_changes and search_passages, though the citation-locator sentence adds secondary context.
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 should be used when a specific document ID is known, but it does not explicitly compare against alternatives such as search_passages or list_evidence_sources. The snapshot/citation note hints at usage context but does not provide direct selection guidance.
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.
Every tool has a unique purpose, and the descriptions are detailed enough to clearly distinguish between search, list, get, and specific operations across domains. No two tools overlap in function.
Domain tools follow a consistent '<domain>_<verb>_<noun>' pattern, but gateway-level tools like 'call_tool', 'find_capability', 'inspect_tool', 'search_services', and 'status' lack the prefix, introducing a minor inconsistency. Overall still readable and predictable.
With 35 tools, the count exceeds the typical 3–15 range, but this is a gateway aggregating multiple distinct domains (holidays, laws, opendata, recalls, etc.), making the larger set justified. The count feels appropriate for the server's purpose.
Each domain offers a full set of operations: search, list, get, and domain-specific actions (like count_business_days or get_document_changes). Gateway meta-tools cover discovery, inspection, and invocation, leaving no obvious gaps.