Fetch a Logseq block and its full subtree by ID, optionally including embedded images, so AI agents can read note content.
A block by id (the ‹abcd1234› shown in outlines, or a full uuid) with its subtree.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| include_images | No |
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, openWorldHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so safety and idempotency are covered. The description usefully adds that the result is the block plus its subtree, but says nothing about depth, pagination, or how include_images affects the payload.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence that names the resource, the identifier formats, and the returned scope with zero filler.
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 and an undocumented optional parameter, this is only minimally complete: the id is well explained but include_images (default true) and the extent of the subtree returned are left to inference.
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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It clarifies the required id format (outline-style ‹abcd1234› or a full uuid), which is real added value, but leaves include_images entirely unexplained.
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 resource (a block) and scope (with its subtree), so the agent knows it returns a tree rather than a flat record. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like get_page or get_task, leaving the agent to infer which retrieval tool applies.
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?
No when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as get_page or search for locating a block. The only implicit signal is the id format, which tells the agent what to supply rather than when to choose this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.