Retrieve bibliographic details, abstracts, and public full text for a specific legal literature ID returned by search results. Use it to review source material for Taiwan legal research.
取得研究文獻的書目、摘要與全文（有公開全文時）。
國家圖書館授權的全文只供個人查閱，請勿轉存或散布。
Args: literature_id: search_legal_literature 回傳的 id（如「ncl:A15001353」「grb:13540821」）
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| literature_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add real behavioral context: full text is returned only when publicly available, and NCL-licensed full text is restricted to personal reading with no redistribution. It still omits return format and error behavior.
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, front-loaded blocks: what it returns, the licensing caveat, then the argument. Every part earns its place, though the licensing sentence is a legal notice rather than invocation guidance.
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 single-param getter with no output schema or annotations, the description covers what is returned, an availability caveat, and the parameter's provenance. Sufficient to call correctly, with only minor gaps around failure/empty-result behavior.
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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it names the sole parameter, ties it to search_legal_literature output, and gives two concrete id format examples ('ncl:A15001353', 'grb:13540821'). This meaningfully exceeds the bare schema.
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+resource: retrieving the bibliography, abstract, and (when available) full text of research literature. It clearly contrasts with the sibling search_legal_literature by being the id-keyed single-item fetch, so an agent can distinguish it without opening the schema.
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 explicitly states the id comes from search_legal_literature, establishing the search-then-retrieve workflow that selects this tool over its search sibling. It gives no explicit when-not or failure conditions, which keeps it from a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.