get_contentsRetrieve clean, parsed page contents (text) for one or more Exa result IDs or URLs. Use after search to read the full content of pages. Example: get_contents({ ids: ["https://example.com/article"] })
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ids | Yes | An Exa result ID or URL, or an array of them. | |
| _apiKey | No | Optional — your own Exa API key for higher limits; omit to use the shared Pipeworx key. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "ids": "https://example.com/article"
+ },
+ {
+ "ids": [
+ "https://example.com/article1",
+ "https://example.com/article2"
+ ]
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds that the tool returns 'clean, parsed' content, implying transformation. It does not disclose error handling or rate limits, but the annotations cover the main behavioral traits, so a 3 is appropriate.
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 extremely concise: two sentences plus an example in a code block. Every sentence adds value and there is no 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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 params, no output schema), the description adequately explains what the tool returns (clean, parsed text) and how to use it. It does not cover edge cases like invalid IDs, but for a simple retrieval tool this is acceptable.
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 both parameters are well-documented. The description provides a usage example that reinforces parameter usage but does not add meaning significantly beyond the schema. Baseline 3.
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 verb 'retrieve', the resource 'clean, parsed page contents', and the scope 'for one or more Exa result IDs or URLs'. It also positions itself as a follow-up to search, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'search'.
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 explicitly states 'Use after search to read the full content of pages', providing clear usage context. It does not list explicit exclusions or alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an agent to understand when to invoke this tool.
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.