Retrieve one active knowledge entry and its body by stable ID. Returns relations split into current and replaced, with as_of to view an earlier state.
Read one selected active entry, including its body, by stable ID. Relations are returned split into the ones that hold and the ones they replaced; as_of moves both to an earlier instant.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| as_of | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses a genuinely non-obvious trait: relations are split into held vs. replaced, and as_of moves both to an earlier instant, which is valuable behavioral context. However it omits error behavior for missing/inactive IDs, pagination (none needed), and what happens to relations when as_of is used beyond shifting the instant.
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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose before the relation/as_of nuance. No filler or repetition.
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 two-param read tool with no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description covers purpose and one behavior (relation splitting/as_of) but leaves id constraints and inactive/missing-entry behavior unaddressed, which an agent could need before calling.
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%, so the description must compensate. It does explain as_of semantics (moves relation state to an earlier instant), which the schema does not, but says nothing about the required id format or the pattern/length constraints. The as_of explanation adds real value, but id remains undocumented, so it's borderline.
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 (Read) and resource (one selected active entry, including body) by stable ID. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_types, search, or inventory that enumerate rather than fetch a single record, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative.
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 guidance, no conditions or exclusions, and no named alternatives. The phrase 'selected active entry' implies the ID must reference an active entry but doesn't say what to do for inactive ones or which sibling to use for search vs. direct fetch.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.