Retrieve full content from an indexed source URL returned by search, using offset and limit for character-based pagination.
Read an indexed source URL from search results, with character-based pagination.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| source | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | ||
| offset | Yes | ||
| source | Yes | ||
| content | Yes | ||
| next_offset | Yes | ||
| total_characters | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuine behavioral trait beyond that: pagination is character-based, telling the agent how offset/limit are measured. It does not state error behavior for unindexed URLs.
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 tight sentence with no filler, front-loading what is read and the pagination model. Every word earns its place.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover safety. However, for a 3-parameter tool with zero schema coverage, the description leaves the required "source" format and the limit/offset defaults undocumented, so it is only minimally sufficient.
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 carry the load. "Character-based pagination" usefully clarifies the unit of limit/offset, but defaults (limit 12000, offset 0), the 20000 maximum, and the expected format/meaning of the required "source" value are all left unstated.
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 (an indexed source URL from search results), which is unambiguous on its own. It does not name or contrast with the sibling langgraph_query_tool, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.
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?
"from search results" implies this tool is used downstream of a search step on already-indexed URLs, giving implied usage context. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative, so the guidance remains inferential.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.