get_nodesRetrieve full data for up to 50 nodes by ID or exact name, including every stored field, Markdown text, size, links, and zone.
Full data of up to 50 nodes by id or exact name: every stored field, the complete Markdown text, effective size, links (with the other node's name) and zone.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ids | No | ||
| names | No | Exact names (case-insensitive fallback). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is handled. The description earns credit by disclosing the batch cap (50) and the exact payload contents (all stored fields, full Markdown, effective size, links with names, zone), which annotations cannot convey.
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?
One dense sentence, front-loaded with the key constraint ('up to 50 nodes by id or exact name') and then the return payload. No filler and nothing redundant.
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 what comes back, and annotations carry the safety profile. It omits edge behavior such as missing-id handling, result ordering, or whether ids and names may be combined, which leaves a small gap.
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 50%: names carries an 'exact names (case-insensitive fallback)' note while ids is bare. The description restates the id/exact-name lookup and the 50 cap, adding mild clarification but no format or matching details beyond the schema.
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?
Names a specific verb+resource (get nodes) and pins the lookup keys (id or exact name), which implicitly separates it from search_nodes and list_nodes. It never names a sibling outright, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.
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 'by id or exact name' phrasing implies when this tool fits (known identifiers) versus a search, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. Usage must be inferred from the payload description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.