Read original document text page by page from archived course assignments and feedback. Enable optional local OCR for scanned pages, though OCR transcription is unverified.
Read original document text by page. The path points to the preserved original. Optional local OCR helps scanned pages; OCR transcription is unverified.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ocr | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| page_count | No | ||
| document_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the returned path points to a preserved original, OCR is a local optional step, and its transcription is explicitly unverified — a caveat an agent needs to interpret results responsibly.
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?
Three tight sentences with the core action front-loaded; no filler or restatement of the tool name. The middle sentence about the preserved original is slightly oblique but still earns its place.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description should ideally say what comes back (text per page) and note that page_count controls how many pages are returned and the max of 20. It covers the read/OCR story adequately but leaves the pagination behavior undocumented for an agent that must call it correctly.
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 carry the parameter burden. It explains the purpose of ocr ('optional local OCR helps scanned pages') and implies page semantics ('by page'), but says nothing about page_count (default 3, max 20), the page default/minimum, or the document_id pattern constraint.
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 (read) and resource (original document text) with a scoping qualifier (by page), which is clear enough for an agent to distinguish it from course/assignment siblings. It also clarifies that it returns the preserved original rather than a derived artifact. It lacks explicit comparison to any sibling, but the domain is distinct enough that this isn't a real ambiguity.
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 description implies when to use the ocr flag ('helps scanned pages'), which is a useful conditional hint, but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_submission or search_coursework, and no exclusions or prerequisites for the base read operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.