Retrieve current or saved revision content from a visual design document, optionally inspecting a specific element's subtree.
Read the current document or an immutable saved revision; optionally inspect one element subtree.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| revision | No | ||
| elementId | No | ||
| documentId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful context by mentioning immutable saved revisions and optional subtree inspection, but it does not disclose return format, error behavior, or what happens when a revision is invalid.
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 well-structured sentence conveys the main action and both optional modes. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and contains no filler.
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 is adequate for a simple read operation but incomplete given there is no output schema. It does not describe what the return value contains, how revisions are referenced, or any constraints around current-document reads. The annotations cover safety, but the missing detail about parameters and output leaves room for incorrect invocation.
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 0%, and the description only loosely maps to parameters: 'revision' to immutable saved revision and 'element subtree' to elementId. It does not explain the meaning of documentId, default revision behavior, or how elementId selects a subtree.
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 clear verb and resource: read a document, either the current state or a saved revision, with optional element-level filtering. It is concise and understandable, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like document_export or history_read.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings such as document_export, selection_read, and history_read exist, but the description never states what distinguishes this read operation from them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.