Fetch a single Ed discussion thread, including the post body and replies, to review course Q&A. Optionally refresh live and paginate long Markdown content.
读取单个 Ed 帖子正文和回复；找帖子用 search_ed_threads，新动态用 list_ed_updates；live=true 先刷新。返回 Markdown，长内容支持分页。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| live | No | true=先从 Ed 实时刷新该帖 | |
| offset | No | Markdown 字符起点，默认0 | |
| thread | Yes | 帖子 ID、FIT2102#42 或 Ed 链接 | |
| max_chars | No | 最大字符数，默认30000，最高100000 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries the rest: it discloses the return format (Markdown), that long content is paginated, and that live=true triggers a real-time refresh from Ed. It does not cover auth requirements or error behavior, but the read-only safety profile plus format/pagination disclosure is solid added value.
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 compact sentence with the core action front-loaded, followed by sibling routing and the live flag, then return format. No redundant or filler text.
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 read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essential missing pieces: output format (Markdown), pagination support, refresh semantics, and sibling alternatives. Remaining gaps (auth prerequisites, error cases) are minor for a read-only thread fetch.
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 100%, so all four parameters (thread, live, offset, max_chars) are already documented in the schema. The description only reinforces pagination and live refresh at a high level, adding little syntax or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 a single Ed thread's body and replies. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the two nearest siblings (search_ed_threads for finding, list_ed_updates for new activity), so an agent can pick it without opening any schema.
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?
Gives explicit routing: use search_ed_threads to locate a thread and list_ed_updates for new activity, implying this tool is for fetching a thread you already have an identifier for. It also states the live=true precondition for refreshing before reading.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.