Inspect a local page draft to retrieve its meta, section IDs, total section count, and commit progress details such as page_id and committed_count.
Inspect a local page draft: its meta, the section ids, total section count, and (if a commit is in progress) the page_id + committed_count.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| draft_id | Yes | Draft id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.31.8Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already establishes this is a safe read, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by disclosing the conditional output shape (page_id + committed_count appear only when a commit is in progress). It doesn't mention auth or rate limits, but the read-only nature and conditional return are well conveyed.
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 enumerated fields follow the verb and the conditional clause is placed last, which is exactly where it belongs.
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 read-only single-param tool with no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields and their conditional nature, so an agent knows what to expect. Only the absence of routing guidance to sibling draft tools keeps it from being fully complete.
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% with the single draft_id parameter documented as 'Draft id', so the schema carries the burden. The description's phrase 'a local page draft' implies the id refers to a local (not published) draft but adds no format or sourcing detail beyond the schema baseline.
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 ('Inspect') and resource ('a local page draft') and enumerates the concrete data returned (meta, section ids, section count, and commit progress fields). This clearly separates it from list_page_drafts (plural listing) and commit_page_draft, though it never explicitly names those siblings.
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 description explains what the tool returns but gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and never names alternatives like list_page_drafts or get_page_source. The parenthetical about an in-progress commit hints at context but is not an actionable usage rule.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.