Fetch a project's AGENTS.md file, whole or by section, so agents get the instructions they need without hunting for them.
Return this project's AGENTS.md — the whole file, or one section by heading. The instructions a client would otherwise have to know to look for and read wholesale.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| section | No | A heading to return just that section (case-insensitive, prefix match). Omit for the whole file. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Return' implies a read operation and the whole-file-or-section scope is clear, but the description does not explicitly state it has no side effects, how missing sections behave, or any return-format details. It is adequate but not rich.
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?
The first sentence is concise, front-loaded, and behaviorally precise. The second sentence is somewhat non-essential and motivational, but it is short and helps position the tool's purpose without bloating the description.
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 one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, the description is nearly complete: it states what is returned and the available modes. The main gap is not explicitly disambiguating from list_agents_md_sections, though the verb 'Return' and 'section by heading' make the distinction reasonably clear.
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 the baseline is 3; the schema already documents the section parameter and the omit-for-whole-file behavior. The description adds only a slight contextual restatement ('or one section by heading'), providing no meaning beyond the schema.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Return this project's AGENTS.md', and explicitly defines the two modes: whole file or one section by heading. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like author_agents_md (write) and list_agents_md_sections (list headings).
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?
The phrase 'The instructions a client would otherwise have to know to look for and read wholesale' implies this is the entry point for pulling project instructions, but it never explicitly says when to prefer this over list_agents_md_sections or when not to use it. Usage context is implied, not stated with exclusions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.