Retrieves complete metadata—title, author, source, license, description, and direct PDF URL—for a Conceptio document ID, so agents can identify and access the document.
Fetch complete metadata (title, author, source, license, description, direct PDF URL) for a document ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| doc_id | Yes | Conceptio document ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.15Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds value by specifying the returned field set, which helps distinguish it from the download sibling, but says nothing about behavior on an invalid/unknown ID or any limits.
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 the verb and resource first and the payload enumerated after; every word earns its place and nothing is padded.
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?
There is no output schema, but the description compensates by listing the metadata fields returned, which is the key thing an agent needs. Minor gaps remain around failure behavior for a bad ID, but nothing essential to calling it is missing.
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?
Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema carries the semantics. The description only restates 'document ID' and adds no hint about where the ID comes from (e.g., a prior search result), so baseline 3 is correct.
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 ('Fetch') and resource ('complete metadata') and enumerates exactly what comes back (title, author, source, license, description, direct PDF URL). It does not distinguish itself from siblings like conceptio_search or conceptio_download_pdf, which is the only gap.
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?
'for a document ID' implicitly signals the tool applies when an ID is already known (as opposed to search), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. The agent must infer the boundary against conceptio_search and conceptio_download_pdf on its own.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.