Retrieves one full procedure step (0–10) from process.txt so agents can resolve SOP steps named only by a Keep rule.
Return one procedure step from process.txt in full (0–10), for steps an SOP step names only by its Keep rule.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| step | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered before the description speaks. The description adds that the read is scoped to the current session's plan and returns the full text of one step, but says nothing about out-of-range indices, error behavior, or whether the return is plain text versus structured.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler: verb, scope, and the indexing convention arrive immediately. Nothing is repeated from the schema or title.
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 one-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety, the definition is close to sufficient but has two holes an agent would hit: the 1-based index is given without a valid range or out-of-range behavior, and the relationship to get_plan (which presumably also contains steps) is unaddressed.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry the parameter's meaning — and it partially does by specifying '1-based index', which is real semantic value the bare integer schema lacks. It stops short of giving the valid range, whether index means ordinal position in the plan, or what happens for an invalid step number.
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?
Specific verb and resource: 'Fetch the full text of a single step' scoped to 'the current session's plan'. The word 'single' implicitly contrasts with bulk retrieval, but the description never names get_plan, so the distinction from the sibling that returns the whole plan 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?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not, and no mention of the obvious alternative (get_plan / get_step_all) even though it is a listed sibling. 'Current session's plan' only tells the agent which plan, not when to prefer this tool over fetching the whole plan.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.