Fetches one exact research record or a selected historical version using project, record type, and ID, so you can inspect stored content and trace changes.
Read one exact record or historical version.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare a safe, idempotent, read-only, closed-world operation. The description adds that it can retrieve a historical version, but does not cover not-found behavior, permissions, or response shape.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is tightly scoped, though its brevity leaves gaps that are captured in other dimensions.
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 nested-ref tool with no output schema and no schema field descriptions, the definition is too thin. It does not explain the ref object's required fields, valid record types, or what a returned record contains.
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 0% and the single parameter is a nested ref object with required projectId, type, and id plus optional version. The description only hints at the version field via "historical version" and does not explain the ref structure or enum type meanings.
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 states a specific verb and resource: read a record or historical version. The word "exact" helps distinguish it from broader query siblings, but it does not explicitly name or contrast against any sibling tool.
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?
It implies use when an exact record reference is known, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives such as querying. The agent must infer when this is preferable to rws_result_query or other retrieval tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.