Retrieve direct children of a Sitecore item by ID, including each child's fields. Pass options.fields to return only the fields you need and reduce response size.
Get the direct children of a Sitecore item by its ID, with all their fields. Pass options.fields to return only the fields you need — the full form is roughly 1.9KB per child.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| 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, and the description adds valuable context beyond that: the per-child payload size (~1.9KB) and the fact that a full item carries every template field. That payload-cost warning is exactly the kind of behavioral detail annotations cannot express.
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 tight sentences with no filler; the core purpose is front-loaded and the performance tip follows. The size figure is repeated in the schema description, a minor redundancy, but the prose itself earns its place.
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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (children plus their fields) and the cost trade-off, which is the main thing an agent needs. The nested options object's remaining flags are left unaddressed, keeping it short of complete.
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?
Top-level schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does explain id and options.fields meaningfully (including cost implications). But options.version, database, language, includeMetadata, and includeStandardTemplateFields remain undocumented in both schema and description.
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 ('Get'), resource ('direct children of a Sitecore item'), and identifier ('by its ID'), which is precise. 'Direct children' implicitly contrasts with item-service-get-item-descendants, but the sibling is never named, so the agent must infer the distinction.
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 a clear when-to-use rule for the options.fields parameter ('Pass options.fields to return only the fields you need'), which is genuinely useful. However, it offers no guidance on when to prefer this over item-service-get-item-descendants, item-service-get-item, or item-service-search-items.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.