Retrieve raw documentation content for one or more exact node IDs, enabling direct access to specific sections without navigating the hierarchy.
Fetch raw documentation content for one or more exact node IDs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| node_ids | Yes | ||
| source_id | Yes | Canonical documentation source ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the operation fetches 'raw' content, implying a read-only, non-destructive action, but it does not describe the return format, error handling, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens when a node_id is invalid or not found. The term 'raw' is left vague.
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, well-constructed sentence with no filler. The key constraints ('raw', 'exact') are front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly. It is appropriately concise for the information it conveys.
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 fetch tool with two required parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not state the expected return value (e.g., raw text, structured content), how multiple node_ids are handled (combined or separate), any error behavior, or prerequisite steps like listing children first. The absence of annotations and output schema makes these gaps significant.
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 only 50% per the context, and the description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema. It clarifies that node_ids must be exact, but does not explain the relationship between source_id and node_ids (e.g., whether node_ids must belong to that source). The description does not compensate for the low coverage adequately.
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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('raw documentation content') and specifies the scope ('exact node IDs'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_sources (which lists sources) and list_children (which lists nodes), so an agent can tell what this tool does without opening the 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?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The phrase 'exact node IDs' implies that the caller must already have node IDs (likely from list_children), but the description does not state this dependency or name any alternative tools. The usage context is left entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.