Retrieve a help doc article by its ID. Optionally specify a sparse fieldset to include only the needed fields.
Get a help doc article by ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The ID of the help doc article to retrieve. | |
| fields | No | Sparse fieldset: field names to include (e.g. ["id","name"]). Omit to receive all fields. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.39.3Input schema / properties / fields / anyOfRemoved value: -[
- {
- "items": {
- "type": "string"
- },
- "type": "array"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
-]Input schema / properties / fields / itemsAdded value: +{
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / fields / typeAdded value: +"array"Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "id",
- "fields"
-]New value: +[
+ "id"
+]v1.26.0v1.25.0v1.21.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat safety behavior. It adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., 404 behavior, auth, or sparse-field effects), but there is no contradiction and the read-only nature is clear.
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 clear sentence states the operation, resource, and required input with no filler. The key scoping information ('by ID') is front-loaded.
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 two-parameter getter with read-only annotations and no output schema, the description plus schema is sufficient to call the tool correctly. A small gap is the lack of any mention of what the response contains, but this is largely inferable for a 'get' 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 100%, so id and fields are already fully documented. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, which is acceptable given that the schema carries the burden.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), names the exact resource ('help doc article'), and states the retrieval criterion ('by ID'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like twdesk-search_helpdoc_articles and twdesk-get_helpdoc_site.
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?
'by ID' implies this tool is appropriate when the caller already has a help doc article ID, but there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer it over search_helpdoc_articles or how to obtain an ID. No alternatives are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.