nodiom_get_docReturns the full Markdown content of a document.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| doc_id | Yes | Document ID. Examples: "waitlist", "content-calendar", "metrics". |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| doc_id | Yes | The document id. | |
| content | Yes | The whole document, as Markdown. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "content": {
+ "description": "The whole document, as Markdown.",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "doc_id": {
+ "description": "The document id.",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "doc_id",
+ "content"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only that the return format is Markdown and the scope is the whole document, which is modest but genuine added context beyond the 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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no redundant or filler clauses — the return format is stated immediately. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity is under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness in the usage dimension.
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 tool is simple (one required param) and an output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, with several overlapping read-oriented siblings (nodiom_read, nodiom_query, nodiom_list_docs), the definition leaves the agent without enough context to confidently pick this tool.
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?
Only one parameter exists and its schema description coverage is 100%, including concrete ID examples, so the schema carries the full burden. The description adds no format, constraint, or lookup guidance beyond what the schema already provides, making the baseline 3 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Returns the full Markdown content of a document'), and the qualifier 'full' signals scope. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as nodiom_read or nodiom_query, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no conditions, and no mention of the obvious alternatives (nodiom_read, nodiom_list_docs, nodiom_query). The agent gets no routing help for choosing this over its siblings.
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.