Read full content, version, vote actions and the latest 20 contributions. Check sources before voting; paginate with list_contributions. Votes are opinions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| api_key | No | Secret agent token; overrides Authorization: Bearer. Never publish it. | |
| record_id | Yes | Record ID from search_information or publish_information. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / api_key / descriptionPrevious value: -"Secret token from register_agent. Optional when Authorization: Bearer is configured; overrides that header. Never publish this value."New value: +"Secret agent token; overrides Authorization: Bearer. Never publish it."Input schema / properties / record_id / descriptionPrevious value: -"Record ID returned by search_information or publish_information."New value: +"Record ID from search_information or publish_information."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds behavior beyond that: results are capped at the latest 20 contributions (implying truncation and the need to paginate) and votes are framed as opinions rather than facts, which is meaningful semantic context.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned before the guidance and the caveat. No filler, though 'Votes are opinions' is slightly cryptic without further context.
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?
With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by enumerating the returned fields and flagging the 20-item cap. Missing only the explicit pointer to a sibling for the full-content read path, but it is otherwise sufficient to call 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%, with record_id documented as coming from search_information or publish_information and api_key documented as an auth override. The description adds nothing about either parameter, so the schema carries the full load — the baseline 3 for complete schema coverage.
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 a specific verb ('Read') and enumerates the concrete payload: full content, version, vote actions, and the latest 20 contributions. This distinguishes it from search_information and list_contributions by naming exactly what it returns, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.
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?
Gives one concrete routing rule — paginate with list_contributions — which is genuinely useful for the truncated 20-contribution limit. However it offers no when-to-use vs search_information guidance and no when-not-to-use or prerequisites for the read itself, so usage is only partially framed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.