Fetch one of your TomeVault items by id, with its content. Returns the version the file's maintainer approved, which is not always the newest one. Requires a vault access token with the items:read scope. Encrypted items are not retrievable and return not found, indistinguishable from a missing id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The vault item id, from list_vault_items. |
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?
Beyond the readOnlyHint=true annotation, the description discloses three meaningful behaviors: it returns the maintainer-approved version which may not be newest, it requires items:read scope, and encrypted items return not found so they are indistinguishable from missing ids. This is substantial behavioral context that the annotations do not provide.
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?
Each sentence earns its place: action, version behavior, auth scoping, and encryption/error behavior. The key operation is front-loaded in the first sentence with no filler or redundancy.
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 single-required-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is unusually complete. It covers prerequisites (token scope), version-selection behavior, and edge case (encrypted items and identical not-found error), so an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.
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% and the id parameter already has its own description ('The vault item id, from list_vault_items'). The tool description adds 'by id' and emphasizes content retrieval, but does not add new semantic detail about the id parameter beyond what the schema already provides, so it stays at the baseline.
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?
Opens with a specific action and resource: 'Fetch one of your TomeVault items by id, with its content.' This clearly separates it from list_vault_items (which lists), get_tome, and other siblings, and the by-id singular access makes its role unambiguous.
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 conveys the use case: an agent has a vault item id and wants its content. It also states the required items:read scope. However, it never names alternatives or gives explicit 'use X when...' guidance to distinguish from get_tome or list_vault_items, so the when-to-use info is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
