Read an indexed document snapshot to retrieve the version captured at indexing time. Pass the source_hash to reject stale citations and ensure accuracy.
Read an indexed source snapshot. Pass the search source_hash to reject stale citations.
Source files may have changed since indexing; this returns the indexed version.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| doc_id | Yes | ||
| max_chars | No | ||
| start_line | No | ||
| source_hash | No |
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 and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the returned content is the indexed snapshot and may differ from the current source file, and source_hash acts as a staleness guard. It still doesn't mention truncation or pagination behavior around max_chars/start_line.
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?
Two short sentences with no filler; the core purpose is front-loaded and the staleness caveat follows immediately. Every sentence carries information.
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?
Read-only safety is covered by annotations and no output schema exists, so the description needn't document return shape. But with four parameters and 0% schema coverage, three parameters are undocumented anywhere, which is a real gap for an agent invoking the tool.
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 carries the full burden, yet it only explains source_hash. The required doc_id and the max_chars/start_line windowing parameters are never described, leaving an agent to guess their meaning and interaction.
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 and resource ('Read an indexed source snapshot') and clarifies it returns the indexed version rather than the live file. It does not name any sibling (e.g. search_knowledge) as the alternative, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.
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?
'Pass the search source_hash to reject stale citations' implies this tool is used downstream of a search that surfaced a source_hash, which is useful workflow context. However, there is no explicit statement of when to reach for this versus search_knowledge or list_knowledge_bases, and no exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.