Retrieves the annotation or note attached to a specific document in a library using its library identifier and bibcode.
Get annotation/note for a document in a library.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bibcode | Yes | Bibcode to get annotation for | |
| library_id | Yes | Library identifier | |
| response_format | No | markdown |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.0Input schema / $schemaAdded value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / properties / bibcode / minLengthAdded value: +1Input schema / properties / library_id / minLengthAdded value: +1v1.0.14Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, giving the safety profile. The description adds no further behavioral context such as return format, missing annotation behavior, or permissions, and does not contradict the annotations.
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 zero wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simple retrieval purpose.
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?
The description states the core retrieval action and scope, which is minimally adequate for a simple read tool with annotations. However, it omits response_format semantics and any guidance about missing annotations or alternatives, leaving gaps.
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 67%, with descriptions for bibcode and library_id but none for response_format. The description only restates 'document in a library' and adds no meaning beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the undocumented response_format 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 gives a specific verb (Get), resource (annotation/note), and scope (for a document in a library), so an agent can tell it apart from delete_annotation and manage_annotation by verb. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, but the purpose is clear.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The implied usage is retrievable from the verb, but no explicit when/when-not context is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.