get_itemFetch a single catalog item by ID, returning summary metadata, chapter text, or full stored body depending on the include parameter.
Fetch one catalog item. include=summary returns metadata, a short excerpt, media, and the Hermes prompt. include=chapters adds chapter text. include=full adds the stored body text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| include | No | ||
| item_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context by disclosing what each include mode returns (metadata/excerpt/media/prompt, chapter text, stored body). It does not cover failure behavior for an unknown item_id.
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?
Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then progressively detailing each include mode. Every sentence carries distinct information and no padding is present.
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 must characterize returns, and it does so per include mode. For a simple two-parameter read tool this is nearly complete; only error/not-found behavior and item_id expectations are unaddressed.
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 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does largely meet it: it defines the meaning of all three enum values for include and their additive relationship (chapters adds to summary, full adds body). item_id is only implied by 'one catalog item' – no format or constraint guidance is given.
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 one catalog item.' That contrasts implicitly with siblings like search_content (multi-result) and list_* (enumeration), though no sibling is named explicitly. Clear enough for an agent to select it when it already has an item_id.
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 three include modes give practical guidance on how much to request, which is a form of usage steering. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement versus alternatives such as search_content or get_media_urls, nor any prerequisite context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.