sieve_chunkRetrieve the text of a specific chunk from a pre-processed web page using its URL and chunk ID. Get traceable, decision-ready content without re-parsing the page.
Returns the text of a chunk from a page prepared earlier with sieve_page (same url).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Chunk id such as c3. | |
| url | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| text | Yes | ||
| anchor | No | ||
| tokens | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses a stateful dependency on a prior sieve_page call with the same URL. However, it does not describe failure behavior, whether the page must still be cached, or any other side effects or requirements beyond that dependency.
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?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and then provides the key precondition in a clear parenthetical.
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?
The tool is simple with only two required parameterschers an existing output schema, and the description covers the core precondition. It lacks error-handling guidance, but for a straightforward read operation this is not a critical omission.
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 50%, with id already documented as a chunk ID. The description adds some extra meaning for url by stating it must be the same URL used with sieve_page, which helps an agent select the correct value. This is modest but not fully comprehensive.
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: it returns the text of a chunk from a page. It also distinguishes itself from its sibling sieve_page by noting the page must have been prepared earlier with sieve_page, so an agent can tell the tools apart.
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 clearly implies the proper usage sequence: call sieve_page first, then sieve_chunk with the same URL. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternatives, but with only one sibling and a clear dependency, the guidance is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.