Retrieve original Markdown paths, revisions, and previews for specified episode UUIDs.
Episode UUID를 원본 Markdown 경로·revision·원문 미리보기로 되돌린다.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| episode_uuids | Yes | 검색 결과 sources를 상세 확인할 episode UUID 목록 |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior, so there are no side effects to disclose. The description adds value by specifying the exact return data (path, revision, preview), which is not present in the annotations. It does not mention auth or rate limits, but these may not be critical for a read-only tool and the annotations cover the main safety aspects.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence that clearly communicates the action and the result. It is well-structured and free of unnecessary words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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?
Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema, read-only operation), the description is sufficiently complete. It explains what the tool does and what it returns, which is all that is needed for an agent to invoke it correctly. No additional context about errors or edge cases is necessary for this basic retrieval task.
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?
The schema already includes a detailed description for the single parameter 'episode_uuids' (list of episode UUIDs to check source details), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description does not add new information about the parameter itself; it only recontextualizes it in terms of the return value. Thus, 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.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: it returns the original Markdown path, revision, and preview for given episode UUIDs. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_graphiti (which likely searches) and get_graphiti_status (which likely retrieves system status).
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?
The description implies the tool is used to retrieve source details for episode UUIDs, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus the sibling tools, nor does it provide exclusions or conditions. The context is clear but lacks explicit guidance on alternative selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.