Fetch a Logseq task by its exact text, including all nested blocks. Pass a date to pick the right one when names are reused.
A block by its exact text (e.g. a task called "web-12") with everything under it.
Names are often reused on different days; pass date (YYYY-MM-DD) to pick one.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No | ||
| name | 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, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so safety and repeatability are covered structurally. The description adds useful behavioral context about lookup being exact-text and names being non-unique across days, but says nothing about what happens on no-match, ambiguity, or return size for large subtrees.
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?
Very short and front-loaded, which is good, but the first sentence is a fragment with no verb and the indented second paragraph reads as leftover formatting rather than deliberate structure. It is terse without being fully tight.
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 read-only lookup with no output schema, the essentials (how the block is identified, how to disambiguate, that the subtree comes along) are present. Missing pieces are the include_images behavior and any routing versus get_block/get_page, leaving an agent with avoidable ambiguity.
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% and there are 3 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It explains date well (format and disambiguating purpose) and implicitly covers name via 'exact text', but include_images is documented nowhere — neither schema nor description explains its effect on the result.
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 the resource and the selection rule clearly: a block located by its exact text, returned together with its subtree ('everything under it'). The example ('web-12') grounds the exact-match semantics. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling get_block, so it stops short of a 5.
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 one concrete usage rule — pass date (YYYY-MM-DD) when a name is reused on different days. That is real guidance, but there is no statement of when to prefer this over get_block, list_tasks, or search, which are the obvious alternatives for the same kind of lookup.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.