Retrieve a finding's full content, including body and evidence, with a summary of its anchor node. Returns a missing marker if the anchor node does not exist.
단일 finding 의 전체 내용 (body·evidence 포함) 과 앵커 노드 요약.
앵커가 아직 존재하지 않는 노드를 가리키면 { id, missing: true } 로 온다.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| finding_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by revealing the non-obvious missing-anchor fallback shape ({ id, missing: true }) and the inclusion of body/evidence. It does not cover error handling or read-safety, but 'get' makes the read-only intent clear and the described behavior is otherwise complete.
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?
Two tight sentences: the primary function is stated first, and the edge-case behavior is appended second. There is no filler or redundancy.
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 one-parameter get tool with an output schema present, the description is complete. It covers the full scope of the response and highlights the most important edge case (missing anchor), so an agent has enough information to call the tool correctly.
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?
The only parameter, finding_id, is self-explanatory from its name, and the description's use of 'single finding' reinforces that the ID identifies one finding. However, schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no further detail about where the ID comes from or how it should be formatted. The gap is minor for a single obvious 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 names a specific verb ('get') and a specific resource ('single finding'), and it goes further by listing what is included (body, evidence, anchor node summary). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list/update/delete finding tools.
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?
The description makes it clear that this tool is for retrieving the full content of one finding, which implies when to use it. It does not explicitly contrast with list_findings or get_node, but the context is specific enough for an agent to select it for detail retrieval.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.