Fetch the full text of one Bramvia article by its slug, as Markdown. Use after search_bramvia_knowledge when you need the complete content rather than a summary.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Article slug, e.g. "dynamics-nav-end-of-life-2028-2031-deadlines-us". |
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 burden. It discloses the return format (Markdown) and the scope (full text vs summary), which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose potential failure modes (e.g., what happens if the slug doesn't exist), rate limits, or whether the article content is cached or fetched live. For a simple read operation, this is adequate but not rich.
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?
Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action, resource, identifier, and output format. The second sentence gives usage guidance. Every word earns its place.
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-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential information: what to pass, what to expect back, and when to use it. The only minor gap is error behavior for invalid slugs, but that is not critical for an agent to invoke the tool 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the slug parameter with an example. The description adds the context that the slug identifies a Bramvia article and that the output is Markdown, but it doesn't add meaning beyond the schema's example. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific verb ('Fetch'), a specific resource ('full text of one Bramvia article'), and the exact identifier ('by its slug'), plus the output format ('as Markdown'). It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling search_bramvia_knowledge by specifying it returns complete content rather than a summary.
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 says to use this tool after search_bramvia_knowledge when complete content is needed rather than a summary. This gives the agent a clear when-to-use directive and implicitly identifies the alternative 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.