get_documentRetrieve a document's full content and metadata using its ID after a search. Use it to inspect or verify specific results from a hybrid knowledge base.
Zwraca pełną treść i metadane jednego dokumentu po jego id (z wyników search_documents).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Identyfikator dokumentu, np. "doc-001" |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It usefully states the payload ('pełną treść i metadane'), which is the key behavioral fact given there is no output schema, but it says nothing about read-only guarantees, permissions, or error behavior for an unknown id.
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 sentence with no filler, front-loading the return payload and then the keying mechanism. Nothing is wasted.
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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned and where the id originates. Only error/missing-document behavior is unaddressed, a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.
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%, so the id format is already documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds real value by stating the provenance of the id (results of search_documents), which tells the agent where the value must come from.
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 (zwraca) and resource (pełną treść i metadane jednego dokumentu) and ties the lookup to an id obtained elsewhere. It references the sibling search_documents, making the retrieve-vs-search split inferable, though it does not explicitly contrast with the other siblings.
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 parenthetical '(z wyników search_documents)' implies the intended workflow: get the id from a prior search, then fetch the full record here. There is no explicit statement of when not to use it or what to do if the document is missing, so guidance is implied rather than spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.