mcp-stashbox

Get one tag

get_tag

Read-only

Fetch a tag by its UUID from several Stash-box catalogues, comparing values and exposing disagreements according to a preferred order. Optionally read from a single catalogue with 'sources'.

Instructions

Read one tag from the catalogue its identifier names, written instance:uuid. The answer is one card, read on every catalogue that holds the record and reached by the link each of them publishes to the same record elsewhere. Every value names the catalogues that said it, and where they disagree the reading nobody preferred is published beside the one that won. Name 'sources' to read one catalogue alone.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes
`prefer`	No	The order the catalogues are preferred in where they disagree on a field. Left out, the registry's own order stands, and every card states the order applied.
`sources`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`card`	Yes
`cached`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedv1.0.0Aug 19, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / prefer / description

Previous value: -"The order the catalogues are preferred in where they disagree on a field. Left out, the order the registry declares stands. Every card states the order that was applied."New value: +"The order the catalogues are preferred in where they disagree on a field. Left out, the registry's own order stands, and every card states the order applied."

changedOutput schema / properties / card / properties / held_by / description

Previous value: -"Every catalogue asked, with the identifier the record carries there."New value: +"Every catalogue asked, with the identifier the record carries there. This is where what each of them did with the record is read: the state says which of the three it met, and the reason says why it was not asked or what went wrong."

removedOutput schema / properties / per_source

Removed value: -{
-  "items": {
-    "additionalProperties": false,
-    "properties": {
-      "algorithms_not_searched": {
-        "description": "Fingerprint algorithms its lookup does not search, so they were never put to it.",
-        "items": {
-          "type": "string"
-        },
-        "type": "array"
-      },
-      "count": {
-        "description": "Rows it contributed. Never added to another catalogue's: they index corpora that overlap by an amount none of them publishes.",
-        "type": "number"
-      },
-      "error": {
-        "enum": [
-          "not_found",
-          "invalid_input",
-          "rate_limited",
-          "parse_failure",
-          "network_error",
-          "timeout"
-        ],
-        "type": "string"
-      },
-      "index_total": {
-        "description": "What its own index holds for this question, the rows on this page included.",
-        "type": "number"
-      },
-      "index_total_over_any_word": {
-        "description": "The total counts rows carrying any word of the query, its text index reading them apart.",
-        "type": "boolean"
-      },
-      "moment": {
-        "description": "Which moment failed.",
-        "type": "string"
-      },
-      "name": {
-        "description": "The name that catalogue calls itself.",
-        "type": "string"
-      },
-      "narrowings_naming_no_record": {
-        "description": "Narrowings written only with identifiers another catalogue minted.",
-        "items": {
-          "type": "string"
-        },
-        "type": "array"
-      },
-      "narrowings_not_received": {
-        "description": "Narrowings this catalogue cannot receive. This is the one field that says a catalogue cannot do something.",
-        "items": {
-          "type": "string"
-        },
-        "type": "array"
-      },
-      "narrowings_received_in_part": {
-        "items": {
-          "type": "string"
-        },
-        "type": "array"
-      },
-      "reason": {
-        "description": "Why it was not asked, or what went wrong.",
-        "type": "string"
-      },
-      "records": {
-        "description": "Distinct records behind its rows.",
-        "type": "number"
-      },
-      "skipped": {
-        "description": "Rows it answered with that this client could not read and left out.",
-        "type": "number"
-      },
-      "source": {
-        "description": "The catalogue this row is about.",
-        "type": "string"
-      },
-      "state": {
-        "description": "'answered' looked, and a count of zero means it found nothing. 'failed' could not answer, and states nothing about what it holds. 'absent' was never asked. Only the first is evidence about the world.",
-        "enum": [
-          "answered",
-          "failed",
-          "absent"
-        ],
-        "type": "string"
-      },
-      "unattributed": {
-        "description": "Records it answered with while carrying none of what was asked about.",
-        "type": "number"
-      }
-    },
-    "required": [
-      "source",
-      "state"
-    ],
-    "type": "object"
-  },
-  "type": "array"
-}

Addedv0.9.0Aug 14, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description adds significant behavior beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations: it explains that results are read across every catalogue holding the record, that each value names its source catalogues, that disagreements surface the non-preferred reading alongside the winner, and that sources restricts reads to one catalogue. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is not overly long and front-loads the core action, but the prose is dense and grammatically awkward ('the catalogue its identifier names', 'reached by the link each of them publishes'), which hurts readability. It could communicate the same behavior in clearer, more compact language.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a multi-catalogue read with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description covers the key behavioral wrinkles: cross-catalogue resolution, per-value provenance, disagreement handling, and the sources restriction. It does not discuss not-found or error cases, but the main weakness is that the unusual wording obscures rather than clarifies context that is otherwise present.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is low (33%), so the description partially compensates: 'written instance:uuid' clarifies the id format, 'Name sources to read one catalogue alone' explains the sources parameter, and the disagreement/preference text gives meaning to prefer. Still, it does not systematically document each parameter, and the prefer behavior is only conveyed indirectly.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with 'Read one tag from the catalogue its identifier names, written instance:uuid,' which identifies the action (read) and resource (tag) and indicates lookup by identifier. However, the phrasing is convoluted and could more directly distinguish this from sibling tools like search_tags or get_sources, though the singular 'one tag' helps.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the verb 'Read one tag' and the mention of identifier-based lookup, but the description does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as search_tags or get_sources. The only direct usage hint is 'Name sources to read one catalogue alone,' which guides a parameter rather than tool selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server