Fetches a specific hard constraint principle (like Do No Harm) by index, or retrieves the entire core principles module if index is omitted.
Read an item from M2 — Core Principles (hard constraints such as Do No Harm).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| index | No | Item index (0–5). Omit for the whole module. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden alone, but the word "Read" does establish this as a non-mutating, safe retrieval operation. It adds no information about what happens when index is out of range, whether the whole module is large, or how the result is shaped.
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 compact sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. The only minor cost is reliance on the internal label "M2" and a parenthetical that does the semantic heavy lifting.
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 low-complexity read tool with one fully documented optional parameter and no output schema, the description supplies enough to invoke it correctly. It is complete enough, though it leaves module identity and routing entirely to the reader's inference.
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%, and the single parameter's index range, 0–5 bound, and 'omit for the whole module' behavior are all documented in the schema itself. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so 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 ("Read") and a specific resource (an item from M2 — Core Principles), and the parenthetical clarifies what kind of content lives there ("hard constraints such as Do No Harm"). The module name implicitly distinguishes it from siblings like get_code_of_conduct and get_humanity_goals, though it never explicitly contrasts them.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many other get_* content tools in the sibling set, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. An agent must infer from the module name alone whether this or get_code_of_conduct is the right call.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.