Fetch details for a specific job-search document by ID, such as a resume, cover letter, or application record. Use it to view content or metadata when only the document ID is known.
Get details of a specific document by ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| document_id | Yes | The document ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.2.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Get details' implies a read, but it discloses nothing about permissions/ownership scoping, whether it errors or returns empty for missing IDs, or any rate limits. For a zero-annotation tool this is a substantial gap.
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?
One short sentence with the resource and lookup key front-loaded and zero padding. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification captured in other dimensions.
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?
This is a simple single-parameter read tool, so a minimal description is defensible, and no output schema exists to omit. Still, with no annotations and no return-shape hint, the agent lacks any signal about what 'details' contains or how failures surface.
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 the single document_id parameter is already documented in the schema. The description's 'by ID' phrasing adds no format, source, or constraint details beyond that baseline.
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 (Get) and resource (details of a document) scoped by ID, which is clear enough to act on. However, it gives no differentiation from the sibling get_documents (list) or the other document tools rename_document/delete_document, leaving the agent to infer the distinction from the name alone.
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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of the alternative get_documents for listing, and no prerequisites or error conditions (e.g., what happens for an unknown or unauthorized ID). The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.