Core Content Services MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: it retrieves text extract content, concatenates multiple extracts, and returns an empty string if none are found. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or performance implications, which are important for a retrieval tool.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. The param and returns sections are structured clearly, with no redundant information. Every sentence adds value, such as explaining parameter options and return behavior, making it efficient and well-organized.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, parameter semantics, and return behavior adequately. However, it could improve by addressing usage context or error cases more explicitly.

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?

The description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% schema description coverage. It explains that the 'identifier' parameter can be either a document ID (GUID) or a path (e.g., '/Folder1/document.pdf'), clarifying usage that isn't captured in the schema. This compensates well for the low schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Retrieves a document's text extract content.' It specifies the verb ('retrieves') and resource ('document's text extract content'), making the action clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_document_annotations_tool' or 'get_document_properties', which might also retrieve document-related data.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools, prerequisites, or specific contexts for usage. For example, it doesn't clarify if this is for text extraction only versus other document retrieval methods, leaving the agent without usage direction.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.