Fetch a stored entry by key, returning its full content, version, tags, and linked entries. Ideal for retrieving complete vault information by referencing the entry key.
Read a Finch Vault entry by its key. Returns full content, version, tags, and any linked entries.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | Entry key e.g. 'research/btc-dominance-analysis' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.7.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the return payload (full content, version, tags, linked entries). It does not contradict the annotations and is consistent with the read-only nature, though it omits behavior for missing keys.
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, front-loaded sentence states the core action and the return shape with zero wasted words. The most important scope constraint ('by its key') appears early.
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 low-complexity, single-parameter read operation with annotations covering its safety profile, the description is nearly complete: it names the input and the return fields. Minor gaps are the absence of error behavior for nonexistent keys and explicit sibling differentiation, but these are not critical for a simple read tool.
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%, so the sole parameter 'key' is already documented with an example in the schema. The description reiterates reading 'by its key' but adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, keeping this at the baseline of 3.
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 description states a specific verb and resource ('Read a Finch Vault entry by its key'), and the qualifier 'by its key' clearly distinguishes it from search/list/history siblings. An agent can tell this is the single-entry-by-key read operation without opening any other schema.
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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like vault_search or vault_list, and no exclusions are stated. The appropriate trigger (knowing an exact key) is only implied by the parameter shape, never made explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.