Fetch the full stored content of a document or web page from the knowledge base by URL or filepath, so you can inspect the complete source instead of a search citation.
Retrieves the full stored content of a document or web page from the knowledge base by URL or filepath.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| source | Yes | File path or URL returned in search citations |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Retrieves' and 'full stored content' convey a read-only fetch of previously indexed material, which is useful behavioral context, but it says nothing about failure modes (e.g. source not indexed), permissions, or whether retrieval is cached/live.
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?
One tight sentence with no filler, and the resource and input type are front-loaded so an agent can act immediately.
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 simple single-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, this covers what the tool does and what it accepts. It would be fully complete if it noted the prerequisite that the source must already be indexed.
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 100% for the single 'source' parameter, so the schema already documents the accepted file path or URL. The description's 'by URL or filepath' merely restates that, adding no format or syntax detail beyond the structured field. Baseline 3.
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 verb (Retrieves) and resource (full stored content of a document or web page) with the scoping qualifier 'from the knowledge base by URL or filepath'. It implicitly distinguishes itself from tealkit_search_knowledge by emphasizing 'full stored content', but never names that sibling explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied: the phrase 'returned in search citations' in the schema plus 'full stored content' suggests this is the follow-up step to a search. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.