Retrieve the full contents of a lore card using its key (filename without .md), so agents can access stored people, events, places, things, or in-jokes as durable canon.
Read one whole card by key (its file name without .md).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It signals the operation returns the 'whole' card (full content, not a preview) and that it is a non-mutating read by verb choice, but says nothing about error behavior for a missing key, permissions, or storage scope.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the parenthetical is the only elaboration and it earns its place by defining the key format.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the one parameter is fully specified. Only minor gaps remain: no error/not-found behavior and no indication of the card store's scope.
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 0%, yet the description explains the sole parameter precisely: the card key is the file name without the .md extension. That is exactly the format detail the bare schema lacks, though it does not cover case sensitivity or invalid-key handling.
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 ('Read one whole card') and scopes it to a single item via the key, which contrasts implicitly with list_cards. It does not explicitly name siblings, but the read-one vs. list-many vs. write distinction is clear from the wording.
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?
Usage is implied: fetch a single card rather than enumerate (list_cards) or modify (write_card). There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over list_cards or what happens if the key is unknown, so the agent must infer the routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.