get_adrRead, parse, and return a full ADR document by ID, including frontmatter and body. Validates the ID to prevent path injection.
Read, parse, and return a full ADR document (frontmatter and body) by its id. An invalid id (path-injection attempt or wrong format) is a ValueError raised before any file access.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | ||
| frontmatter | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.36.0Does 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 usefully discloses an error trait ('An invalid id ... is a ValueError raised before any file access'), confirming read-only access and failure semantics, but says nothing about permissions or how the read behaves on a valid-but-missing 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?
Two sentences with zero waste, front-loading the core action and following with the notable failure mode. Nothing is padded or repeated from the schema.
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 present, return-value details are unnecessary, and the description covers purpose plus error behavior for a one-parameter getter. The main gap is the absence of usage/routing guidance relative to the many sibling get_* 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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does add meaning: the single 'id' identifies a specific ADR and must be a valid format (rejecting path-injection). This goes beyond the bare 'Id' string in the schema, though it stops short of documenting the id's accepted format or source.
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 and resource ('Read, parse, and return a full ADR document (frontmatter and body) by its id'), and the '(frontmatter and body)' detail clarifies scope versus a lighter-weight read. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like list_adr or validate_adr, but the purpose is unambiguous.
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?
It implies you fetch a single document 'by its id' but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and never names an alternative such as list_adr or validate_adr. An agent must infer the retrieval context on its own.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.