get_documentRetrieve a document's status and a fresh download link by document ID; the link expires after 5 minutes, so request a new one when needed.
A document's status and fresh download links (they expire after 5 minutes).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| document_id | Yes | doc_… |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the response contains a status and download links that expire after 5 minutes, which tells the agent to fetch and use links promptly rather than cache them. It stops short of describing status values or error behavior for a missing/invalid document_id.
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?
One short clause with zero waste, and the time-sensitive caveat is included inline. It is a sentence fragment rather than a structured statement of purpose, which costs it a point.
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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description does mention what is returned, which is the main gap it needed to fill. However, it leaves the shape of 'status' and the nature of the download links vague, which is thin for a tool whose whole value is that return payload.
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 the single document_id documented as 'doc_…', so the schema already carries the parameter semantics. The description adds nothing about the ID format or lookup failure modes, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 names the resource and what comes back (status plus download links) but never states the action with a verb, and it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like get_report, read_artifact_data, or list_documents. The title 'Get document' supplies the verb, so an agent can infer retrieval, but the description itself only implies it.
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 guidance on when to call this versus get_report, list_documents, or read_artifact_data, and no mention of prerequisites such as needing a prior create_document/upload_file. The 5-minute expiry note is a timing caveat, not usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.