Retrieve a specific thought from a reasoning tree using tree and thought IDs, enabling direct inspection of individual decision paths.
Get a specific thought by ID
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| treeId | Yes | The ID of the tree | |
| thoughtId | Yes | The ID of the thought to retrieve |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.6.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It surfaces a read operation through 'Get', but does not disclose behavior such as what is returned, whether not-found errors occur, or how treeId scopes the retrieval. For an unannotated getter this is underwhelming.
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 no wasted words. It is appropriately brief for a simple getter, though it leaves out useful context that could have been added without bloat.
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 two-parameter getter with full schema coverage, the description is basically adequate to invoke it: provide treeId and thoughtId. But with no output schema, it doesn't describe what the response contains, and it provides no context on when this tool is the right choice among many thought-related siblings.
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 coverage is 100% because both treeId and thoughtId have descriptions in the input schema. The description adds no extra parameter meaning, so the baseline of 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?
The description 'Get a specific thought by ID' states a clear verb and resource, and the 'by ID' qualifier distinguishes it from list-style siblings like get_best_thoughts. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling or describe scope, so it falls short of the strongest examples.
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 guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_tree_structure, get_best_thoughts, or evaluate_thought. The description implies a simple retrieval but provides no explicit context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.