Fetch a concept's frontmatter, body, and known relations using its Never4gA UUIDv7. Enables building project context packs without model calls.
One concept by its Never4gA id: its frontmatter, its body, and the relations the projection knows about.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The concept's UUIDv7. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does 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 the shape of the result (frontmatter, body, relations), which tells the agent this is a read operation with no mutation, but it says nothing about auth needs, not-found/error behavior, or whether relations are resolved inline or lazily.
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 compact sentence with the key payload description front-loaded after the colon. Slightly awkward opening ('One concept by its Never4gA id') but no wasted clauses.
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, the description does the work of describing the return payload, which is the right instinct. However, for a lookup tool it omits failure modes (unknown id, missing body) and whether relation traversal is bounded, leaving an agent with gaps when the call returns unexpectedly.
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?
One parameter at 100% schema coverage, where the schema already documents it as 'The concept's UUIDv7.' The description repeats the id-based lookup without adding format, aliasing, or fallback behavior, so it matches the baseline for schema-documented params.
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?
Names a specific verb-resource pair (get a concept) and enumerates what is returned: frontmatter, body, and relations. That distinguishes it from search or list siblings, though it never names an alternative explicitly.
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, no prerequisite (e.g., where the id comes from), and no mention of alternatives such as never4ga_search for when the id is unknown. The 'by its id' phrasing merely restates the required parameter.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.