Retrieve a stored document by ID for data not covered by other tools, such as settings or profile.
Any single stored document by id, for anything the other tools don't cover (e.g. "settings", "profile").
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| doc_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already confirm that this is a safe, read-only operation, so the description does not add much rich behavioral context. It mainly reinforces the scope of the data being handled.
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?
The definition is concise, but it suffers from structural vagueness by combining the functional definition with the usage policy into a single sentence, slightly diluting its impact.
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?
The description is severely lacking in specifying output semantics. Since it is a 'document' getter, the agent needs to know if the return value is raw text, a specific JSON structure, or a stream. Without this, the tool is highly incomplete for effective invocation.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides no extra meaning beyond the required 'doc_id'. Since the input schema is minimal, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 tool's purpose is clear (retrieving a single document by ID), but the differentiation from siblings is weak. Instead of stating its specific domain, it relies on negative exclusion ('for anything the other tools don't cover'), which is not a strong functional boundary.
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 definition provides explicit usage guidance by instructing the agent to prioritize other specific tools first. It clearly suggests this tool is a fallback mechanism for non-standard or unique document retrieval.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.