Fetch a full-page preview image for a document by ID to visually inspect its content without retrieving the full file. Returns the preview as base64-encoded image data.
Get a full-page preview image of a document. Returns the preview as a base64-encoded image resource.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The document ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotation readOnlyHint=true already signals a safe read operation, and the description adds the behavioral detail of returning a base64-encoded image. However, it does not disclose potential size limits, format specifics, or any other side effects. The description adds some value but is not rich in behavioral context.
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?
The description is a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose. It wastes no words and clearly communicates the essential 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?
For a simple tool with one well-documented parameter and an annotation indicating read-only, the description is sufficiently complete. It states what the tool does and the return format. It could mention the image format or dimensions, but these are not critical for a preview tool, and the lack of an output schema means the description appropriately covers the return.
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% (the 'id' parameter has a description 'The document ID'), so the schema already documents the parameter adequately. The description does not add any extra semantic meaning to 'id' beyond what the schema provides, aligning with the baseline for high coverage.
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 clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('full-page preview image of a document'), and mentions the return format (base64-encoded). It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'get_document_thumbnail' by specifying 'full-page', though it does not explicitly name the alternative.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_document_thumbnail or get_document_content. It does not mention any conditions or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate use case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.