Fetches the contents of a specified document by ID and returns them as a string, enabling document retrieval in AI chat.
Read the contents of a doc and return it as a string
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| doc_id | Yes | Id of the document to read |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It does disclose the return format ('as a string'), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about permissions/access scoping, error behavior for invalid or inaccessible docs, or size limits.
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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler, and the return type is included economically. It is appropriately sized, though it is perhaps too terse to earn a 5.
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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, stating the return type partially compensates. However, with no annotations to cover the safety/behavior profile, the lack of any access or failure context leaves a gap.
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?
Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100% with a clear 'Id of the document to read' description, so the schema already does the work. The description adds no format or sourcing detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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 (read) and resource (doc contents) and clarifies the return form ('as a string'). The read vs. edit contrast with the sibling edit_document is implied by the verb but never named 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?
No when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no explicit routing to the sibling edit_document as the alternative for modifications. The agent must infer that this is the read-only counterpart from the verb alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.