get_document_thumbnailRetrieve a document's thumbnail image as inline content by specifying its document ID. Quickly identify documents visually without opening files.
Return the document's thumbnail as inline image content.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| document_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds the return format 'inline image content' beyond what annotations declare (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive). However, it does not disclose details like image size, resolution, or potential error handling. Given annotations cover safety, the description provides minimal additional behavioral context.
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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it is so brief that it omits useful context, which slightly detracts from its effectiveness.
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 tool with no output schema and only a basic description, the return value is under-specified. 'Inline image content' is vague and does not explain format (e.g., base64, URL) or any limitations. The description does not cover potential errors or usage context, leaving the agent with incomplete information.
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 description provides no explanation of the document_id parameter. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate, but it remains silent on parameter meaning or constraints. The only parameter is obvious from its name, but the description does not clarify its role or format.
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 verb 'Return' and the resource 'document's thumbnail', and specifies the output as 'inline image content'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_document_content (full content) or get_document_metadata (metadata). The purpose is 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_document_content or get_document. The description only states what it does, not when to select it. No exclusions or alternative references are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.