annotations_getRetrieve an annotation bundle by ID, including each mark's element, rect, note, and cropped images of marked regions to inspect UI feedback.
Return an annotation bundle with each mark's element, rect, note, and the cropped images of the marked regions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| annotation_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clarifies the return payload, which is useful because there is no output schema, but it does not state error behavior for a missing/invalid ID, permissions, or explicitly confirm read-only side-effect-free behavior.
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 names the returned bundle and lists the key contents without filler. Every phrase contributes useful information.
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 compensates for the missing output schema by listing returned fields, which is valuable for a getter. However, it leaves the sole parameter undocumented and does not cover missing-record behavior or usage context, leaving clear gaps for an agent.
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 single required parameter, annotation_id, is not mentioned in the description. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description adds no meaning about its format or expected value.
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 ('Return') and resource ('an annotation bundle'), and enumerates the bundle contents (element, rect, note, cropped images). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as annotations_list or annotations_resolve, so it falls short of a 5.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like annotations_list or annotations_resolve. The retrieval intent is implied by 'Return', but no conditions, exclusions, or alternatives are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.