get_daily_draftRetrieve a daily draft by ID along with all of its immutable revisions so you can review prior versions and track how the draft changed over time.
Read a daily draft and all of its immutable revisions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| draftId | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | ||
| code | No | ||
| draft | No | ||
| message | No | ||
| revisions | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds useful context that revisions are immutable and all are returned, but it does not disclose error behavior, lookup failure cases, or authorization requirements.
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 focused sentence with the core purpose front-loaded. Every word contributes to stating what is read and what is returned.
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 output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Still, for a one-parameter tool with zero schema description coverage, the description should clarify what draftId refers to and what happens if it is invalid or missing.
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 carries full responsibility for explaining the single draftId parameter. It never mentions draftId, its UUID format, or how it is used, leaving the schema name as the only clue.
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 ('daily draft') and adds that all immutable revisions are included, which helps distinguish it from list_daily_drafts. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling retrieval tools like get_daily_activity.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus list_daily_drafts, get_daily_activity, or save_daily_draft. Usage is only implied by the verb 'Read' and the noun 'daily draft'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.