get-resource-referenceFetch a resource reference by numeric ID and type to use in MCP client operations, enabling retrieval of text or blob data references through the proxy server.
Returns a resource reference that can be used by MCP clients
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| resourceId | No | ID of the text resource to fetch | |
| resourceType | No | Text |
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, and non-destructive behavior, but the description adds no further context. It doesn't describe the nature of the reference (e.g., URI, ID), any side effects, or prerequisites, so it adds no value beyond the structured 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 concise sentence with no padding. While it is short, it lacks useful detail, but the conciseness itself is appropriate for the tool's apparent simplicity. The sentence is front-loaded with the action and result.
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 and only a vague description, the tool's overall behavior and return value are underspecified. It doesn't explain what a resource reference is, how it relates to resourceType, or how it differs from siblings. The description is too thin to be complete for a tool with two parameters and no output schema.
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 does not reference parameters at all. Schema coverage is only 50% (resourceId has a description, resourceType does not). The description should have compensated for the missing resourceType semantics but fails to do so, leaving the agent without essential parameter understanding.
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 tool returns a resource reference, using a specific verb and object. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from sibling tools like get-resource-links, leaving ambiguity about what makes a 'reference' different.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It doesn't mention the parameters or any conditions under which this tool would be preferred, leaving the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.