getRetrieve the full text and metadata of a stored memory document using the document ID returned by search.
Texte intégral d'un document de la mémoire, avec ses métadonnées.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| doc_id | Yes | Identifiant renvoyé par search. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tags | No | ||
| text | Yes | ||
| title | Yes | ||
| doc_id | Yes | ||
| source | No | ||
| project | Yes | ||
| added_at | No | ||
| updated_at | No | ||
| source_kind | Yes | ||
| content_hash | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read operation, and the description's mention of returned full text plus metadata is largely restated by the existing output schema. It adds little beyond the structured fields, e.g. no note on missing-document behavior or permissions.
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 short sentence with no filler, front-loading the resource. It is efficient, though extremely terse for a tool whose name is as generic as 'get'.
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?
With an output schema covering return values and annotations covering the safety profile, the description only needs to state scope, which it does. Minor gap: nothing about failures for unknown doc_id or the relationship to the sibling search/list tools.
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% for the single parameter, and its schema text ('Identifiant renvoyé par search') already explains provenance. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, so 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?
The description states a specific retrieval action and resource ('texte intégral d'un document de la mémoire, avec ses métadonnées'), which is far clearer than the bare name 'get'. It implicitly contrasts with list/search by emphasizing full-text retrieval of a single document, though it never names those siblings explicitly.
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 explicit when-to-use statement or exclusion versus search, list_docs, or the add_* tools. The only usage signal is indirect, via the param note 'Identifiant renvoyé par search', which implies a search-then-fetch flow but leaves the agent to infer it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.