@argosvix/mcp-server

get_annotation

Retrieve a specific annotation by its ID to access its text, label, quality score, and metadata. Returns 404 for IDs not owned by your account.

Instructions

Fetch one annotation by id (obtained from list_annotations_*). Includes annotationText / label / qualityScore / callId / createdAt / updatedAt / createdByUserId. Ids belonging to other accounts return 404 (structural defense).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "annotationId": "<annotationId>"
    },
    "name": "get_annotation"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`annotationId`	Yes	Target annotation id (AUTOINCREMENT integer)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.30.0-alpha.14Jul 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It mentions the structural defense (404 for other accounts) and lists returned fields. It could add more details like authentication requirements or error states, but it covers the key behaviors for a read operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences with no extra words. First sentence gives purpose and id source, second lists data and added behavior. Information is front-loaded and efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple GET by ID tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It mentions the source of the id, the fields returned, and a security behavior. No missing critical information for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by stating that the id comes from list_annotations_*, providing context beyond the schema's 'Target annotation id' description. This helps the agent understand the correct source for the id.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Fetch one annotation by id', specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_annotations_* that retrieve multiple, and create/update/delete tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description specifies that the id should be obtained from list_annotations_*, guiding the agent on prerequisite steps. It also notes that ids from other accounts return 404, a usage constraint. However, it does not explicitly exclude use cases like updates or deletions, but the context from sibling names makes that clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server