get_draftRetrieve a saved RedNote draft and its current hash by draft ID to verify local content before publishing. Returns the draft's content and hash without accessing external services.
按 ID 读取一条本地草稿及其当前哈希。不访问外部服务，也不验证调用者是人类。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| draftId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already signal read-only and closed-world behavior; the description adds meaningful context by stating it does not access external services and does not verify the caller is human. This goes beyond the structured annotations and helps set expectations for side-effect-free, local-only execution.
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?
Two short sentences with no filler; the action and object are front-loaded and the behavioral caveats earn their place. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter read tool.
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-only tool with one parameter, the description covers what it returns (draft + current hash), its local scope, and its non-human-verification behavior. It does not describe not-found or error behavior, but those are minor for this complexity level.
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 0% and the description does not compensate: saying '按 ID' mostly restates the draftId parameter name. The UUID format and constraints are only in the schema, and the description adds no guidance on requiredness, format, or special values.
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?
Description opens with '按 ID 读取一条本地草稿及其当前哈希', a specific verb+resource+scope. It clearly identifies the tool as a single-draft read with hash retrieval, which separates it from list_drafts and the mutation siblings.
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 '按 ID' implies this is the tool to retrieve one draft when an ID is known, but it never names alternatives such as list_drafts for browsing or states when not to use it. No exclusions or selection criteria beyond the single-item read.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.