Return the stored index passage for a search cite. Pass id from the cite, or source plus doc. Not a live web fetch. If ok is false, the index has no passage.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | Vectorize id from a search cite. | |
| doc | No | Document id when id is omitted (with source). | |
| uri | No | intel:// locator from a cite. Preferred over id when present. | |
| source | No | Corpus source when id is omitted (with doc). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / uriAdded value: +{
+ "description": "intel:// locator from a cite. Preferred over id when present.",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: this reads a stored index passage rather than doing a live fetch, and ok false signals the index has no passage. This meaningfully augments the annotation-only picture.
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 concise sentences carry the core purpose, parameter guidance, a limitation, and a return-condition caveat. Every sentence adds information and the main purpose is front-loaded.
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-only retrieval tool with no required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential input alternatives and a key response condition. It does not spell out the full return shape or define ok, but the missing detail is minor and partially compensable by annotations.
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 all four parameters. The description adds input-combination guidance ('id from the cite, or source plus doc'), which is helpful, but it omits the uri parameter that the schema marks as preferred. Overall the description slightly augments the schema without carrying the parameter burden.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Return the stored index passage for a search cite.' It also clarifies what the tool is not ('Not a live web fetch'), which helps distinguish it from broader search or web-fetching tools.
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 gives concrete calling guidance: 'Pass id from the cite, or source plus doc.' It also explains the meaning of ok false, giving the agent context for interpreting results. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the usage context is clear enough for a storage-retrieval 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.