get_chunkRetrieve the full untruncated text and document metadata for a single chunk by its ID, expanding truncated search results into complete content.
Return the full untruncated text of one chunk by its id, with its document metadata.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chunk_id | Yes | Chunk id from a search result. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world). The description adds genuinely new behavioral context by disclosing what is returned: the full untruncated text and accompanying document metadata, which is not derivable from the annotations.
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 filler. The resource, the scope ('one chunk'), and the return content all land in one pass.
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, the description covers what is returned (untruncated text plus metadata) adequately. It omits any note about behavior when the id is invalid or missing, which is a minor 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?
Schema description coverage is 100% and there is only one parameter, so the schema fully documents chunk_id. The description's 'by its id' adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, 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 (return/fetch) and resource (one chunk's full untruncated text plus document metadata), which is precise. It implicitly differentiates from the 'search' sibling by emphasizing 'full untruncated' text, but never names the alternative 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?
The description gives no explicit when-to-use statement; the usage is only implied by the schema note that chunk_id comes 'from a search result.' An agent can infer the lookup-after-search workflow but must do so itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.