Fetch a wallabag entry by ID to read its metadata or extracted HTML content. Use it to retrieve one saved article when you need details or full content.
Get a wallabag entry/article by id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entry_id | Yes | wallabag entry/article id | |
| include_content | No | Include extracted HTML content in the output; false returns metadata only |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. Beyond the implicit read semantics of 'Get', it discloses nothing about side effects, required auth, whether the call is safe/idempotent, or pagination, leaving only a bare verb+resource restatement.
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?
A single short sentence with no filler and the resource identifier front-loaded. It is efficient, though the terseness borders on under-specification for a tool with a non-obvious sibling set.
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 100% schema coverage and an output schema present, return values and parameters need not be explained, so the description is adequate. It still omits any usage context or behavioral note that an agent would want when choosing among the many sibling entry tools.
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%, so both entry_id and include_content (including its default and metadata-vs-content behavior) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or meaning beyond that, making the flat baseline appropriate.
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 (Get) and resource (wallabag entry/article) scoped by id, so an agent can distinguish it from collection-style siblings. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from wallabag_list_entries or the other entry-mutation tools, and leans on the name for the 'single item' distinction.
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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and never names an alternative. A reader can only infer that it fetches one entry by id rather than listing or mutating; nothing routes the agent among the 17 siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.