Retrieve a specific specification or curriculum chunk by the ID returned from cint_search_docs. Set verbose to true for full text.
Retrieve one self-contained specification or curriculum chunk by the ID cint_search_docs returns (e.g. 'spec-04p:scope', 'cu-201-04:muldiv').
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Exact chunk ID as returned by cint_search_docs | |
| verbose | No | If true, return unabridged chunk text |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Retrieve' implies a read-only operation and 'self-contained' hints that the returned chunk stands alone, but there is no disclosure of failure behavior for an unknown/malformed ID, pagination, or permissions. Minimum viable, with clear gaps for a tool lacking any annotation coverage.
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 sentence with zero filler, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed immediately by the provenance constraint and ID examples. Nothing is wasted.
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?
No output schema exists, but the description plus the verbose parameter schema together convey what comes back (an abridged vs. unabridged chunk). It is close to complete for a two-parameter read tool, with only error-handling behavior left unstated.
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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine value beyond the schema by giving concrete ID formats ('spec-04p:scope', 'cu-201-04:muldiv') that reveal the naming convention. The verbose parameter is left entirely to its schema description.
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 states a specific verb (Retrieve) and resource (one self-contained specification or curriculum chunk) and pins the scope to a single item by ID. It also names the sibling, cint_search_docs, as the source of the ID, so an agent can distinguish this fetch-by-ID tool from the search tool and from cint_get_recipe/cint_lookup_diagnostic.
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?
It establishes the workflow dependency explicitly: the ID must be one that cint_search_docs returns, which tells the agent to search before fetching. It stops short of any when-not guidance or comparison against the other get/lookup siblings, so it is clear context without exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.