read_contencial_content公開コンテンツ1件の全文とメタデータを返します。content_id か canonical URL で指定します。
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "read_contencial_content"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | ||
| max_chars | No | ||
| content_id | No |
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 full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic function but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, any prerequisites, error behavior, or rate limits. This is a significant gap.
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 a single, concise sentence in Japanese that front-loads the main function and then explains the specification method. It is efficient, well-structured, and contains no unnecessary words.
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 read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose and identification method. However, it omits the role of max_chars and does not address error handling or authentication, leaving the description incomplete.
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?
The input schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It explains that content_id and url are alternative identifiers but does not mention max_chars at all, nor does it clarify whether one identifier is required. This leaves a major gap.
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 that the tool returns the full text and metadata of one public content item, specifying it by content_id or canonical URL. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_recent_contencial_content and search_contencial_content, which handle multiple items or discovery.
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 provides clear usage context: use this tool when you need the full text of a specific public content item and have its content_id or canonical URL. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the intended use is unambiguous.
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.