Fetch full markdown content for stored library items by ID, up to 20 per call. Use search_library first to find IDs, and batch 5 or fewer long pages.
Fetch full markdown content for library items by id (max 20 per call). Use search_library first to find ids. Responses can be very large — for long pages, batch 5 or fewer ids per call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ids | Yes | Item ids to fetch (max 20) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does well: it states the 20-id hard cap, warns that responses can be very large, and prescribes smaller batches for long pages — operational behavior that is not inferable from the schema. It stops short of saying what happens with invalid or missing ids, or whether results are returned in the requested order.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the prerequisite, then the size caveat. Every sentence carries distinct operational information with no filler or repetition.
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 one-parameter, no-output-schema fetch tool, the description covers what is returned ('full markdown content'), the input cap, and the practical size pitfall. Minor gaps remain around failure modes for unknown ids and result ordering, but nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.
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 coverage is 100% and the single 'ids' parameter already documents 'max 20', so the description's per-call limit largely restates the schema. The one bit of added meaning is that ids should originate from search_library, which is a sourcing hint rather than array-format guidance.
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 ('Fetch full markdown content for library items by id') and implicitly distinguishes itself from the discovery tool by naming search_library as the id source. An agent can tell immediately this is a retrieval-by-id tool, not a search tool.
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 gives an explicit prerequisite and alternative: 'Use search_library first to find ids,' which routes the agent away from guessing ids and toward the sibling search tool. It also gives a concrete usage rule for the batching case ('for long pages, batch 5 or fewer ids per call').
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.