Retrieve a document by its path key from JayDB or JayDB Cloud, returning the stored content for the specified namespace.
Retrieve a document by key from JayDB or JayDB Cloud
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | The document path key, e.g. "users/123/profile" or "boards/task-4" | |
| namespace | No | Namespace name (defaults to JAYDB_NAMESPACE or "default") |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden of conveying behavior. 'Retrieve' correctly implies a safe, non-mutating read, but the description does not disclose what happens when the key doesn't exist, whether errors are thrown, or whether any special auth/rate limits apply. It is adequate as a read operation summary but not fully transparent.
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 a single, short sentence: 'Retrieve a document by key from JayDB or JayDB Cloud.' It is front-loaded, contains no filler, and every word contributes to identifying the operation and source resource. This is an ideal level of conciseness.
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 tool with two fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential use. It could mention error/not-found behavior but the clarity of 'retrieve by key' plus the complete parameter schema is nearly sufficient; a very minor gap prevents a perfect score.
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%, so the schema already describes both 'key' and 'namespace' with concrete examples and defaults. The description adds only the top-level context 'document by key' and does not need to re-explain the parameters. A baseline 3 is therefore appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve a document by key from JayDB or JayDB Cloud.' It clearly conveys a point read by key, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like jaydb_list (listing), jaydb_put (writing), or jaydb_delete (deleting). It communicates the exact operation an agent needs to identify.
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 phrase 'by key' gives a clear context: this tool is for retrieving a single known document, not for listing or querying. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, but the sibling tool names and the key-based wording are sufficient for a tool of this simplicity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.