fetchOne document by id (entity, appearance, k:/p: event, /words/, or a URL) as JSON.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"id": "<id>"
},
"name": "fetch"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, but the description says the id may be 'a URL', which implies fetching external/open-world resources and contradicts openWorldHint=false. Beyond that, the description only states that the result is JSON.
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 filler. The parenthetical id list is dense but earns its place because it defines the only parameter.
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?
Covers the input id variants and says the output is JSON, but with no output schema it does not describe the response structure or error behavior. Adequate for a simple one-parameter fetch, but incomplete for a tool that may return different document types.
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 0% and the schema only defines id as a string, so the description adds substantial meaning by listing valid id categories: entity, appearance, k:/p: event, <entity>/words/<word>, or URL. Exact syntax for those forms remains underspecified.
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 that the tool returns one document by id and enumerates accepted id forms (entity, appearance, event, word path, URL). The verb/resource is clear, but it does not distinguish this tool from siblings such as entity, word, or 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?
There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are named. The accepted id categories imply usage only weakly; an agent is not told when to prefer this over search or the entity/word tools.
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.