get_tree_nodeRetrieve compact metadata for exactly one placement node by placementId, with optional archived inclusion, to inspect node details for tree navigation.
Read compact metadata for exactly one placement node.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| placementId | Yes | ||
| includeArchived | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false already declare the safety profile, so the description's added value should be error behavior, archived-node handling, or payload shape. It only offers 'compact metadata', with no statement about what is omitted, what happens for an unknown placementId, or how includeArchived changes results.
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 efficient, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is short because it is under-specified rather than because it is tightly written.
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 no output schema, the description should indicate what 'compact metadata' returns and must compensate for the undocumented parameters. It does neither, leaving the includeArchived flag and the return shape entirely opaque.
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 coverage is 0%: neither placementId nor includeArchived has a description in the schema, and the description never mentions includeArchived or what its default of false means for archived nodes. 'Exactly one placement node' only faintly implies the single ID parameter.
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 resource (compact metadata for one placement node), and 'exactly one' implicitly distinguishes it from list_tree_children and get_tree_subtree. However, it never names a sibling or clarifies what a 'placement node' is relative to notes/sections handled by get_note or get_section.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus list_tree_children, get_tree_subtree, get_tree_overview, or get_note. The agent must infer the choice from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.