clio_document_getRetrieve a Clio document's metadata and version history by document ID, including version ID, number, size, author, and date. Does not return a download URL.
Returns document metadata and the version history (version id, number, size, author, date). Does not return a download URL – use clio_document_download.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| document_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0-beta.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the shape of the return (metadata plus version id, number, size, author, date) and one important negative (no download URL), but says nothing about authorization requirements, behavior on an invalid or inaccessible document_id, or pagination/limits on version history.
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?
Two short sentences, zero filler, and the positive scope is front-loaded ahead of the exclusion. Every clause earns its place.
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 output schema, the description sensibly enumerates the returned fields, which is the main thing an agent needs. It falls slightly short on auth/error behavior for a document-scoped read, but is otherwise adequate for a one-parameter lookup tool.
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% and the description never mentions document_id or its format, so it does not compensate for the schema gap. The parameter is a single, self-evident integer identifier, which keeps the cost low, but nothing beyond the schema is added.
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 and resource ('Returns document metadata and the version history') and enumerates the returned fields, making the scope concrete. It also explicitly carves itself out from the closest sibling, clio_document_download, so an agent can distinguish them without opening either 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?
Explicitly names the alternative and the condition for choosing it: no download URL here, use clio_document_download for that. It does not address how it relates to clio_document_read or clio_document_search, so routing is clear for one sibling but not the full family.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.