Get Article
lexware_get_articleRetrieve a single article by its ID from the Lexware Office API.
Instructions
Get a single article by ID.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Article ID |
lexware_get_articleRetrieve a single article by its ID from the Lexware Office API.
Get a single article by ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Article ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds no additional behavioral context, but does not contradict annotations.
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, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the tool's purpose.
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?
Given the tool is simple (1 required parameter, no output schema, rich annotations), the description is mostly complete. It could mention that the response contains the full article object, but the lack of output schema and simplicity mitigate this gap.
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% and the single parameter 'id' has a description 'Article ID' in the schema. The description adds no further meaning beyond what the schema provides.
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?
Clearly states the verb 'Get', resource 'single article', and method 'by ID'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like lexware_list_articles which retrieves multiple articles.
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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. While a simple tool, it could mention that this should be used when you have a specific article ID, versus listing or searching.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.