DragApp MCP Server

get_article

Retrieve the full content of a knowledge base article by providing team ID and article ID. Returns title, body, category, and publication status.

Instructions

Get the full content of a knowledge base article by ID, including title, body, category, and publication status. Use list_teams to find your team ID first.

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": {
      "teamId": "<teamId>",
      "articleId": "<articleId>"
    },
    "name": "get_article"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`teamId`	Yes	The team ID
`articleId`	Yes	The article ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.5Jul 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes full responsibility. It clearly indicates this is a read operation by stating 'Get the full content' and enumerates the returned fields. While it doesn't detail auth requirements or error handling, for a simple get operation this is sufficient.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is extremely concise: one sentence for the main purpose and one additional sentence for usage guidance. It is front-loaded with the key action and contains no unnecessary words.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the low complexity, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main purpose, returned fields, and a prerequisite step. It is complete enough for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly, though it could briefly mention error cases.

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% with both teamId and articleId having descriptions. The description adds no new semantic information about the parameters beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the action 'Get', the resource 'knowledge base article by ID', and lists the included fields (title, body, category, publication status). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_articles (which lists articles) and create_article/update_article by focusing on retrieving full content of a single article.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides a clear prerequisite: 'Use list_teams to find your team ID first.' This guides the agent on a necessary step. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like list_articles or search_knowledge for when to use this tool instead.

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