Read document metadata such as title, author, subject, keywords, category, and creation or last-save dates to identify and verify an open Office document before editing it.
Read the document metadata: title, author, subject, keywords, comments, category, creation and last-save dates.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| documentId | No | Target document ID from list_documents. Optional when only one document is connected. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the returned field set (title, author, subject, keywords, comments, category, dates), which is valuable. However, it says nothing about default-document behavior when documentId is omitted, error cases, or permissions.
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 no waste. The field enumeration earns its place because it substitutes for a missing output schema.
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 read-only metadata tool, the description covers purpose and returned fields, and the sole parameter is fully documented in the schema. The main remaining gap is behavior for the omitted-documentId default, which the schema does partially cover.
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%: documentId is fully described, including that it is optional when only one document is connected. The description adds no parameter detail beyond the schema, so the 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?
The description states a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('document metadata') and enumerates exactly which properties are returned. It is clear on its own, but it never mentions the write counterpart set_document_properties or any other sibling, so sibling differentiation is left implicit.
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 such as inspect_document, read_comments, or set_document_properties. The read-only nature is implied by 'Read' but no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.