Fetch a Sitecore item by ID or path to read its fields, version, or language. Use it to retrieve specific content without loading every template field.
Get a Sitecore item by its ID or path.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | The ID of the item. Supply this or path. | |
| path | No | The path of the item. Supply this or id. | |
| options | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing behavioral on top: no note on payload size, performance cost, or that omitting the fields option returns the full heavyweight item. With annotations covering the safety dimension, this sentence contributes almost no extra 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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately terse, though that terseness partly reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing.
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, a nested options object, only 67% parameter coverage, and no behavioral detail, the definition is too thin. An agent gets no help choosing this over the many sibling item-retrieval tools or understanding what a call returns.
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 coverage is 67%, and the description merely restates the id/path alternatives that the schema already documents ('Supply this or path'). It says nothing about the nested options object, field selection, version, database, or language, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.
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 clear verb and resource: "Get a Sitecore item by its ID or path." An agent knows it retrieves a single item rather than a collection, and the id/path alternatives are explicit. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from the many similar siblings such as authoring-get-item, provider-get-item, item-service-get-item-children, or item-service-search-items.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. With siblings like item-service-get-item-descendants, item-service-search-items, and at least two other generic 'get item' tools, the description should say which one to pick and under what condition; it offers none of that.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.