Retrieve full Taro official documentation page content using asset IDs from the initial query-assets step.
Fetch online official docs page content by asset_ids returned from taro-official-query-assets.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| asset_ids | Yes | Asset IDs to fetch |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Fetch' implies a read operation, but it doesn't disclose side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, error behavior, or handling of invalid asset_ids. The description only specifies that the content is from online official docs pages, which is minimal behavioral context.
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, concise sentence with no filler. The core verb, resource, and parameter relationship are front-loaded, making it easy to scan and understand.
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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it fetches, how to get the input, and the tool's niche relative to its sibling. It lacks details on return formatting or error cases, but these are not critical for such a straightforward operation.
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?
The schema already describes asset_ids as 'Asset IDs to fetch' with array constraints, giving 100% coverage. The description adds value by explaining the source of these IDs (returned from taro-official-query-assets), which helps the agent understand the dependency and validity of the 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?
The description clearly states the action ('Fetch'), the resource ('online official docs page content'), and the method ('by asset_ids'). It also references the sibling tool that produces these asset_ids, distinguishing it from 'taro-official-query-assets'.
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 explicitly notes that asset_ids come from 'taro-official-query-assets', implying the correct workflow of querying first then fetching. While it doesn't list when-not-to-use or alternatives, the referenced sibling provides clear context for when this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.