Retrieve the content of a CV section by name or partial name. Use list_sections first to find available section names.
Devolve o conteúdo de uma secção do CV. Usa list_sections para ver os nomes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Nome (ou parte do nome) da secção |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does 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 implies a read but never says so explicitly, and omits whether partial/fuzzy names resolve, what happens when the section does not exist, or what the returned content looks like.
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 short sentences with zero filler; the action is front-loaded and the prerequisite lookup follows immediately.
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 read tool with full schema coverage this is minimally adequate, but with no output schema the description should say more about the shape of the returned content and how non-matching names behave.
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 100%, and the single parameter already documents that a full or partial section name is accepted. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?
States a specific verb ("Devolve") and resource ("conteúdo de uma secção do CV"), which is far more precise than a tautology. It does not distinguish itself from get_cv or search_cv, so it falls short of the top mark.
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?
Explicitly routes the agent to list_sections to discover valid section names before calling this tool, which is real usage guidance. It does not state when to prefer this over get_cv (whole CV) or search_cv, so no exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.