knowledge_source_getFetches a single knowledge source by ID within an organization. Use it to retrieve specific support articles or documents.
Get one knowledge source by id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sourceId | Yes | The knowledge source id (see knowledge_source_list). | |
| organizationId | Yes | The organization id. Use organization_list to find it. |
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=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not state behavior for a missing sourceId, error semantics, or any scope behavior (e.g., that the organization context matters).
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 short sentence with zero filler and the key noun up front. It is efficient, though terse enough that it carries no supporting structure.
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 simple read-by-id tool with full annotations and complete schema coverage, this is minimally adequate. It never acknowledges the required organizationId scoping or what happens on a not-found id, and there is no output schema to compensate.
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%, so both sourceId and organizationId are already documented, including cross-references to knowledge_source_list and organization_list. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, 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?
States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('knowledge source'), and the word 'one' signals single-item retrieval versus a list. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like knowledge_source_list, knowledge_source_sync, or knowledge_source_status, so sibling routing is left to inference.
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 offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The only routing hint (the pointer to knowledge_source_list) lives in the schema, not the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.