Read a citation's page, confidence, date, source, and cited_by_count to identify orphaned citations with zero references.
Read one citation: page, confidence, date, and its source.
cited_by_count is the useful part. Zero means nothing references this
citation — it is orphan debris, and uncite should have deleted it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| citation | Yes | Handle or gramps_id of the citation. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds value by explaining the returned fields and interpreting `cited_by_count` zero as orphan debris, which helps an agent understand the result beyond the annotation.
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 description is two short paragraphs, front-loading the core action and then the key field interpretation. Every sentence earns its place without fluff.
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 simple read tool with one documented parameter and read-only annotations, the description covers the returned fields and the meaning of the important count. It does not cover error behavior, but no output schema exists and the annotations handle safety.
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% for the single `citation` parameter, so the schema already documents handle or gramps_id. The description adds no additional parameter semantics.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Read one citation') and enumerates the fields returned (page, confidence, date, source). It is clear, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from other get_* sibling tools beyond the resource noun.
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 provides implied usage by highlighting `cited_by_count` as the useful part and explaining that zero indicates orphan debris that `uncite` should have removed. It does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like `get_source` or `query_objects`.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.