Retrieve a reusable guidance stanza by its ID to access standing instructions. Optionally scope the lookup to a project's imports when resolving protocol-specific content.
Return one stanza by id (path relative to stanzas/, no .md). Optional project looks through that map's imports.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project | No | ||
| stanza_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.12.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the ID format ('path relative to stanzas/, no .md') and the optional project's import-traversal behavior. It does not cover not-found or error behavior, but the output schema likely covers return structure.
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 sentences with no filler. The core action and identifier format are front-loaded, and the optional parameter behavior is succinctly described.
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 simple getter with two parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is returned, how to reference it, and when the optional parameter matters. Some minor ambiguity around 'that map's imports' remains, and it does not address error cases, but overall it is sufficient for correct invocation.
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 must compensate. It does: stanza_id is explained as a path relative to stanzas/ without the .md extension, and project is explained as an optional lookup through that map's imports. Both parameters receive meaningful semantic context beyond the bare schema.
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 a specific action ('Return one stanza by id') and resource ('stanza'), with a precise identifier convention. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_stanzas, create_stanza, and delete_stanza.
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 makes it clear that this tool is for fetching a single stanza by ID, which is distinct from listing or mutating stanzas. It also explains the optional project parameter's behavior, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.