Retrieve a Thermia Duo 12 knowledge-base section as full Markdown in English or Portuguese, with top-level IDs including subsections and subsection IDs returning only that part.
Return the full Markdown of a section. A top-level id like '6' includes its subsections; '6.1' returns only that subsection. lang: 'en' or 'pt'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | en | |
| section_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load, and it does disclose a non-obvious trait: a top-level id such as '6' pulls in its subsections while '6.1' does not. It says nothing about error behavior for unknown ids, permission requirements, or whether the lang parameter falls back when a translation is missing.
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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the argument semantics that need explaining. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.
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-value shape need not be described, and both parameters get narrative coverage. The remaining gap is failure/edge behavior (invalid section_id, unavailable translation) for a simple two-parameter read tool, which keeps it short of a 5.
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, and it largely does: section_id format is illustrated with concrete dot-notation examples and lang is given its allowed values ('en' or 'pt'). It stops short of stating the default for lang (the schema shows 'en') or whether the two languages can diverge in structure.
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 opens with a concrete verb and resource ("Return the full Markdown of a section"), which is unambiguous about what comes back. It implicitly separates itself from list_sections by returning content for one section, but never names the sibling explicitly.
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 id-hierarchy explanation tells an agent which kind of section_id to supply for the desired scope, which is useful decision information. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use get_section versus list_sections, search_kb, or the get_source_page family, so sibling selection remains inferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.