Retrieve a complete character, place, or note from a writing project, including its profile, connections, and all scenes it appears in.
One character, place or note in full: its profile, who and what it is connected to, and every scene it appears in.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entityId | Yes | ||
| projectId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotation readOnlyHint=true is present, so the description's job is lighter. It adds context about what is returned (profile, connections, scenes) but does not disclose potential size limits, pagination, or error behaviors. The description adds some value but not rich behavioral 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?
The entire description is a single, front-loaded sentence that clearly states the purpose and scope without waste. It is concise and immediately actionable.
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?
The description covers the main output (full entity with profile, connections, scenes) but omits the necessity of projectId and the semantics of entityId. With no output schema, the description should also mention what the return format looks like, but it only lists content categories. It is adequate but leaves gaps.
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%, so the description must fully compensate for the two parameters (entityId, projectId). It does not mention them at all, leaving an agent to infer their roles from names alone. This is a critical gap for a tool with zero schema documentation.
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 (get) and resource (entity, defined as character, place, or note) and details the return content: profile, connections, and every scene. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_project, read_scene, and list_entities, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.
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?
The description implies usage for retrieving full entity details as opposed to search or list operations, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool. There is no guidance on when to prefer get_entity over search_project or get_outline.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.