get_vault_itemCheck a Vault item's status using its short code: uploading, processing, or ready, plus paywall and ready episode count for series.
One Vault item: its state (uploading, processing, ready), paywall and, for a series, how many episodes are ready.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | The link's short code (the part after the domain). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this as a safe read. The description adds useful context about the returned state values and conditional series episode count, but does not mention error behavior, permissions, or not-found handling.
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?
It is a single compact sentence with no wasted words, and the key scope and return fields are front-loaded.
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 no output schema, the description covers the main returned fields and state values adequately. Minor gaps around failure cases and full return shape remain, but the essentials are present.
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% and the single 'code' parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 it returns a single Vault item and names the key fields exposed, which is enough to distinguish it from list_vault. It is slightly implicit about the retrieval verb, but the resource and scope are 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?
Use is implied by 'One Vault item' and the required short-code parameter, since an agent can infer this is for fetching a known item. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus list_vault or other sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.