get_publicationRetrieve a Bannerbear publication by its unique ID (uid) to access its details. Use this read operation for fetching publication information.
GET /v5/publications/{uid}. Current Bannerbear V5 operation; provider scopes, locks and credits apply. Read operation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uid | Yes | ||
| account | No | Exact private workspace profile label; no fallback to another profile key. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds some value beyond that by noting 'provider scopes, locks and credits apply', but it stays generic — it names no specific scope, lock behavior, or credit cost, so the added context is thin.
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?
The endpoint is front-loaded, which is good, and the description is short. However, 'Current Bannerbear V5 operation' is largely filler and 'Read operation' duplicates readOnlyHint=true, so not 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?
There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing what a fetched publication contains or returns. It offers nothing about the response shape, and the two-parameter surface is only partially explained, leaving the definition thin for a lookup tool.
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 only 50%: the account parameter is documented in the schema while uid is not. The description only echoes the '{uid}' path placeholder and adds no meaning, format, or constraint for uid, and never addresses the account parameter, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 states the REST endpoint 'GET /v5/publications/{uid}', which implies retrieval of a single publication, but it leans on a path template rather than a natural-language verb+resource statement. It gives no differentiation from the sibling list_publications, so an agent must infer that this returns one publication versus many.
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 only usage cue is the trailing 'Read operation', which merely restates the readOnly annotation. There is no guidance on when to use this versus list_publications, install_publication, or any other sibling, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.