get_documentFetch a single Outline document by id, urlId, or share id, returning its full markdown body.
Fetch a single Outline document including its full markdown body. Accepts a document id, a urlId (the slug part of the URL) or a share id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Document id, urlId or share id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden; it does disclose that the full markdown body is returned, which is useful return-value context absent an output schema. However, it says nothing about permissions, error behavior for missing documents, or how share ids differ in access.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and return content, with zero filler. Every clause contributes information.
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 covers what is fetched and the accepted identifier forms, which is sufficient to invoke it. Minor gaps around access requirements and not-found behavior are the only omissions.
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, so the baseline is 3. The description largely restates the schema's 'Document id, urlId or share id', adding only a brief gloss that urlId is the slug portion of the URL.
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 ('Fetch') and resource ('a single Outline document') and clarifies it returns the full markdown body, which implicitly separates it from list_documents and search_documents. It does not, however, explicitly name or rule out any sibling tool, so differentiation remains inferential.
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 note that it accepts a document id, urlId or share id implies the tool is for retrieval when you already hold an identifier, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or statement of when to prefer search_documents/list_documents instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.