Retrieves a document by title so AI assistants can read its content for search, summarization, or processing tasks.
Read a document by its title.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | Document title to read |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not say what happens if the title is not found, whether matching is exact or fuzzy, or what the return value contains — significant gaps for a retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage.
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?
One short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than truly concise.
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, the description is minimally viable. Missing are the failure behavior for a missing title and the shape of the returned document, which an agent would want before invoking it.
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 is fully documented in the schema. The description's 'by its title' merely restates the parameter, so the schema does the heavy lifting; 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+resource ('Read a document') and adds the lookup key ('by its title'), which distinguishes it somewhat from list_documents. However it does not distinguish itself from search_documents, which plausibly also retrieves documents.
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 guidance on when to use this versus search_documents, list_documents, or query_database. The agent must infer that this is an exact-title lookup rather than a search.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.