Retrieve paginated full JSON for saved papers, method evaluations, sources, relations, or search records by record ID. Use list_records to find IDs, then continue with next_offset.
分页读取已保存研究、方法评价、来源、关系或检索记录的完整JSON。先list_records找ID；按next_offset续接。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| record_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: this is a paginated read returning full JSON, and continuation should use next_offset. It does not mention rate limits or authentication, but that is not critical given 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?
The description is two compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the essential prerequisite and pagination instruction. Every phrase is useful and there is no redundant text.
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?
With annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description provides enough to invoke the tool: record types, prerequisite lookup via list_records, pagination continuation, and that full JSON is returned. The missing explanation of limit/offset defaults 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies record_id usage ('先list_records找ID') and pagination continuation ('按next_offset续接'), covering two of three parameters partially. It does not explain the limit parameter or its default of 16000, leaving a gap.
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 states a specific verb ('读取' / read) and resource ('完整JSON' of saved research, method reviews, sources, relations, or retrieval records). It distinguishes from list_records by instructing the agent to find IDs there first, but it does not explicitly differentiate from other read_* siblings like read_evidence or read_extraction.
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?
It gives clear usage context: use list_records first to find the ID, then call read_record, and use next_offset to continue pagination. It does not state when not to use this tool or name alternatives beyond list_records.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.