Retrieve metadata and a safe text preview for a OneDrive item using its ID, enabling agents to inspect file details before processing.
Read OneDrive file metadata and a safe text preview when available.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| item_id | Yes | OneDrive item id | |
| access_token | No | OneDrive access token |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.11Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that a text preview is returned only 'when available' and is 'safe' (sanitized), which is useful context beyond annotations, but it doesn't explain what 'safe' means, size limits, or auth expectations.
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 efficient sentence with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. The phrase 'safe text preview when available' is slightly ambiguous but doesn't waste space.
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 tool with no output schema, the description should clarify what metadata is returned and the nature of the preview. It names both but doesn't explain their shape or limits; annotations cover safety, leaving a moderate gap in return-value expectations.
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%, so both parameters (item_id, access_token) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional format, source, or authentication detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 ('read') and resource ('OneDrive file metadata and a safe text preview'), so the agent knows what it returns. It does not name or differentiate from close siblings like onedrive_list, onedrive_search, or drive_read, leaving the agent to infer it targets a single item.
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 indication of when to prefer this over onedrive_list, onedrive_search, or drive_read, and no prerequisites stated. The only conditional hint is the vague 'when available' qualifier on the preview.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.