get_mapRetrieve a mind map by its ID and display it as an indented outline, making the structure and content easy to scan.
Fetch a mind map by id and render it as an indented outline, so its structure and content are readable at a glance.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The map id, from list_maps |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds the behavioral detail that the output is an indented outline, going beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It does not describe potential errors or limitations, but for a read-only fetch-and-render operation the disclosed behavior is largely sufficient and consistent with the annotations.
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, focused sentence that conveys the action, the target resource, and the output format without any redundant or vague wording. It is well-structured and immediately comprehensible.
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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, read-only operation, no output schema), the description is complete. It specifies what the tool does, what it returns (an indented outline), and where the input comes from, covering all necessary context for an agent to use it appropriately.
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 only parameter, 'id', has a description that clearly explains its meaning and provides a source ('from list_maps'). This fully documents the parameter within the schema itself, leaving no ambiguity about how to obtain or use the value.
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 purpose: fetching a mind map and rendering it as an indented outline for readability. It distinguishes the tool from list_maps (which lists maps) and implicitly from render_map by specifying the output format, making the action and result unambiguous.
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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as render_map or list_maps. It lacks explicit conditions, exclusions, or contextual triggers that would help an agent choose this tool appropriately, leaving the selection largely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.