Read a citation to retrieve page, confidence, date, source, and reference count. Zero references indicate orphaned debris.
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 already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral value by interpreting cited_by_count — zero signals an orphaned citation that should have been removed by uncite — which is semantics the agent could not derive from annotations or schema.
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?
Front-loaded with the core action and return fields, then a short second paragraph on the one field that matters. Both sentences earn their place, though the orphan-debris editorializing is slightly informal for a tool contract.
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 no output schema, the description must convey the return shape, and it does list the principal fields plus the significance of cited_by_count. It omits error behavior for an unresolvable handle and does not enumerate every returned field, leaving a small gap for a read tool of this complexity.
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% ('Handle or gramps_id of the citation'), so the schema fully documents the single parameter. The description adds nothing about accepted identifier formats or resolution behavior, which is the baseline-3 case when the schema carries the load.
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 one citation') and enumerates the fields surfaced (page, confidence, date, source), which distinguishes it from the write-side siblings like update_citation and uncite. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from adjacent readers such as get_source or get_object, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use statement, but the second paragraph implies a diagnostic use case: fetch a citation to inspect cited_by_count and decide whether it is orphan debris. The reference to 'uncite should have deleted it' gestures at a workflow without naming when to prefer this tool over query_objects or get_object.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.