Retrieve bounded source text around a selected span, result, or proof. Provide the relevant ID and optional context lines to inspect the exact paper excerpt needed for verification.
Return bounded source text around one span, result, or proof.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| context | No | ||
| span_id | No | ||
| proof_id | No | ||
| result_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.9.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It indicates a read-only operation returning source text, which is helpful, but it does not explain what happens when multiple IDs are supplied, how 'context' affects the result, or whether errors occur for invalid IDs. Adequate for a simple read tool but not rich.
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?
The description is a single efficient sentence with the action and target front-loaded. There is no filler or redundancy, though the brevity sacrifices useful operational detail.
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 annotations, no output schema, and four parameters lacking schema descriptions, the single sentence is not enough to invoke the tool confidently. The behavior of context, ID selection semantics, and expected result format are all missing, so an agent would likely need to guess.
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 compensate. It adds meaning by tying span_id, result_id, and proof_id to their conceptual resources, but it fails to explain the 'context' parameter, the relationship among the three ID parameters, or the expectation that exactly one should be selected. A significant parameter is left undocumented.
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 ('Return') and resource ('bounded source text around one span, result, or proof'), making the core purpose clear. It is slightly ambiguous what 'bounded' means and it does not differentiate from sibling getter tools, but the intent is understandable.
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 description provides no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like workspace_get_result, workspace_get_proof_dependencies, or workspace_get_evidence. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing are mentioned, leaving usage entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.