Retrieve the full text of a specific passage using its chunk ID, along with character offsets in the source file.
Return the full text of one passage by its chunk id, as returned by search_documents, together with its character offsets in the source file.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chunk_id | Yes | Chunk id in the form 'path/to/file.md#3'. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return content (full text and character offsets) and implies a read-only operation via 'Return'. It does not mention error handling or side effects, but for a simple retrieval tool, this is adequate. The explicit mention of offsets adds useful behavioral detail beyond the schema.
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?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('Return the full text') and then specifies the id source and output details. No wasted words; every phrase contributes.
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 single-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description covers the essential behavior (returning text and offsets) and the id's source. It does not explain error conditions or size limits, but those are minor for this simple tool. Overall, an agent can successfully invoke it with confidence.
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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying that the chunk_id comes from search_documents, clarifying its provenance and how to obtain it. This is beyond the schema's format description. It doesn't deeply elaborate on the parameter's format, but the provenance cue is useful.
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 clearly states a specific verb ('Return'), the resource ('full text of one passage'), and the identifier source ('as returned by search_documents'). It distinguishes get_chunk from siblings by focusing on a single passage by chunk id, which is distinct from get_document (whole document) or list_documents/search_documents (listing/searching).
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 phrase 'as returned by search_documents' provides clear usage context, implying this tool is used after a search to fetch a specific chunk. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is strong enough for an agent to infer correct usage. It lacks explicit exclusions, which prevents a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.