Get the full content of a document by its ID. Use find_documents first to search, then get_document to read the content. For binary documents (PDFs, images), content is returned base64-encoded with encoding='base64' and the mime_type field.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| document_id | Yes | Document ID |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behavior for binary documents: base64 encoding and the presence of a 'mime_type' field. While it doesn't mention error cases or authorization, the disclosed behavior goes beyond the bare schema and is valuable for an agent.
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 fluff. The primary purpose is stated first, followed by usage flow and a specific edge case. Every sentence 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 one-parameter getter with no output schema, the description explains the search-then-read workflow and the binary edge case. It could mention what happens if the document is not found, but the prerequisite of find_documents mitigates that gap. Overall, complete enough 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 coverage is 100% with the parameter 'document_id' already described. The description adds minimal semantic value ('by its ID') and clarifies the binary encoding behavior, but the schema already does the heavy lifting. 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 the tool's function: 'Get the full content of a document by its ID.' It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('document'), and distinguishes it from the sibling tools 'find_documents' (search) and 'upload_document' by implying a read operation.
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?
Explicitly provides usage guidance: 'Use find_documents first to search, then get_document to read the content.' This tells the agent exactly when to use this tool relative to its primary alternative. It also adds context for binary documents, which helps the agent know what to expect.
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.
Most tools have distinct resource+action pairs (e.g., create_task vs update_task vs delete_task), but the large number of list/get/search tools creates some potential confusion, especially between get_context, search_entities, and find_documents. Descriptions are detailed and help, but the volume makes navigation less clear.
The majority of tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (create_, delete_, list_, update_, etc.), with clear prefixes like add/remove and link/unlink. Deviations like 'whoami', 'find_documents' vs 'search_entities', and 'setup_organization' prevent a perfect score.
62 tools is far beyond the typical MCP server scope and overwhelms agents with too many choices. Even if each tool is individually useful, the sheer count makes it difficult for an agent to efficiently select the right tool, increasing the likelihood of misselection.
The domain is well covered for projects, tasks, teams, sessions, and notifications, but there are notable gaps: no update_document, no get_task (only list/update/delete), no get_user, no reject_invite, and sprint management lacks update/delete operations. Core CRUD is present for many entities, but not all.
