outline_get_documentFetch an Outline document by ID to access its Markdown content.
Fetch a document by id, including its Markdown text. Args: id (string).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Document id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotent/destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered, and the description is consistent with them (no contradiction). It adds that the response includes Markdown text, but says nothing about missing-document behavior or errors.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, no filler. The trailing 'Args: id (string)' repeats the schema and is the only slightly wasted clause.
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 single-parameter read with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description is adequate: it names the key resource and states that Markdown content is returned. Only the sourcing of the id and failure behavior are left implicit.
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 100% with a single 'id' parameter, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description's 'Args: id (string)' merely restates the schema and adds no format or sourcing detail.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Fetch a document by id') and adds the return-scope detail 'including its Markdown text', which separates it from retrieval-by-list siblings like outline_list_documents. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but 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?
The 'by id' phrasing implies the use case (retrieve a single known document) but never says when to prefer this over outline_search or outline_list_documents, nor where the id is expected to come from. Usage is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.