Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
gemini-mcp-server

gemini-mcp-server

by mnthe
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

fetch

Retrieve the full content of a document using its unique identifier. Get complete text from search results for further processing.

Instructions

Fetch the full contents of a search result document by its ID. Follows OpenAI MCP specification for fetch tools.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "fetch"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe unique identifier for the document to fetch

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Fetch the full contents' but does not mention whether the tool is read-only, any authentication requirements, rate limits, or error behavior. The description is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short and to the point, consisting of two sentences. However, the second sentence ('Follows OpenAI MCP specification...') is unnecessary and provides no actionable information, slightly reducing efficiency. Still, it is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple fetch tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It lacks information about return format, error conditions, or when to use this tool over siblings. Given the minimal context from other fields, a more detailed description would be beneficial.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'id', so the schema already documents it. The description adds no additional semantic value (e.g., format constraints, examples) beyond reiterating that the ID identifies the document.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action (fetch), the resource (full contents of a search result document), and the means (by ID). It is specific and distinguishes this tool from siblings like query or search, though it does not explicitly contrast them.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only mentions following the OpenAI MCP specification, which is vague and provides no practical usage context or prerequisites.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools