get_collectionRetrieve an Outline collection with its document tree, including IDs, titles, and nesting. Use it to understand collection structure before creating or moving documents.
Get one Outline collection including its document tree (ids, titles and nesting). Useful to understand how a collection is organised before creating or moving documents.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Collection id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so reasonably: 'Get' signals a non-mutating read, and it discloses the shape of the returned structure (ids, titles, nesting), compensating for the absent output schema. It omits permission requirements, error behavior, and whether large collections are paginated.
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, zero filler, with the core action and payload shape front-loaded ahead of the usage hint. Every clause earns its place.
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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool returns (document tree) and when to reach for it. Minor gaps remain around permissions and pagination of the document tree, but nothing essential to invoking it correctly is missing.
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 coverage is 100% and there is only one parameter ('id', documented as 'Collection id'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds no format hints or id-source guidance beyond what the schema provides, which is the baseline-3 case.
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 ('Get one Outline collection') and even previews the payload ('document tree (ids, titles and nesting)'), which lets an agent tell it apart from get_document. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling list_collections by name, so it falls just short of a 5.
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?
'Useful to understand how a collection is organised before creating or moving documents' gives a concrete when-to-use context and implicitly routes to create_document/move_document workflows. There is no when-not to use it or explicit mention of the read-only list alternative, so it stops at a clear-context 4.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.