Reads live OfficeNext project data—authors, stated dates/materials, keyword-focused text excerpts, and gallery image URLs—without downloading images or inferring visuals.
Read a live OfficeNext project: authors, stated dates/materials, relevant text excerpts and all gallery image URLs. focus selects excerpts by keyword. Does not download images or infer visuals.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| focus | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: it reads *live* content (network dependence), returns raw textual/excerpt data only, and refuses to infer visuals — meaningful scope limits an agent would otherwise guess wrong about. It stops short of describing failure modes (dead URLs, paywalled pages).
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: the payload of returned fields is front-loaded, then the focus parameter, then the exclusion. No filler and nothing buried.
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?
With no output schema, the description correctly enumerates the return payload, which is the essential gap to fill. For a two-parameter read tool with full annotations, this is nearly complete; only the url validity contract and error behavior are missing.
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 carries the burden. It explains 'focus' well ('selects excerpts by keyword', defaulting to empty), but 'url' is never characterized — no format example, no statement that it must be a live OfficeNext project URL, which matters for an openWorld fetch.
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?
Specific verb (read) plus resource (a live OfficeNext project) and an explicit enumeration of what comes back: authors, stated dates/materials, excerpts, gallery image URLs. It also carves out territory against view_reference_image by saying it does not download images, though it never names that sibling or contrasts with search_references/reference_sources directly.
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 negative guidance is useful ('does not download images or infer visuals'), which steers an agent to view_reference_image for actual image retrieval. But there is no explicit when-to-use statement versus search_references or reference_sources, so the routing decision must be inferred from the tool names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.