Fetch one report's full text (metadata + Markdown body). The source field names the official disclosure platform; keep that attribution when you cite it. Expensive in tokens — prefer get_section when you only need one chapter. Content is annotated with block markers (<!-- ds:block:N -->) so you can cite a specific paragraph or table.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| document_id | Yes | Report id, from list_reports items[].id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does well: it discloses the token cost ('Expensive in tokens'), the exact return composition, the block-marker format for citing paragraphs, and an attribution obligation tied to the `source` field. It stops short of covering error behavior (e.g. invalid document_id) or any truncation/length limits, which keeps it out of 5 territory.
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?
Three sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, then routing guidance, then citation mechanics. Every sentence carries distinct information with no restatement of the schema or annotations.
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?
With no output schema, the description compensates by describing the response shape (metadata + Markdown body) and the embedded block-marker structure an agent needs in order to cite correctly. For a single-parameter, single-resource fetch tool, nothing required for correct invocation is missing.
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 description coverage is 100% for the single `document_id` parameter, which already documents that the id comes from list_reports items[].id. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond that, so the schema does the heavy lifting — the baseline 3 when coverage is high.
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 ('Fetch one report's full text') and enumerates the payload ('metadata + Markdown body'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_section by scope (full report vs one chapter), so an agent can route without opening either schema.
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 names the alternative (get_section) and the condition that selects it ('when you only need one chapter'), framed against the cost of this tool. That is the exact when/when-not routing an agent needs in this sibling set.
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.