Retrieve a document version's body, body_html, body_asl, and diff by ID. Use it to inspect changes or compare versions.
Get version detail (body/body_html/body_asl + diff). GET /doc_versions/:id. 详见 references/api/doc_api.md
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Version ID (required) | |
| raw | No | Return raw full JSON (default false, returns trimmed fields) |
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 carries the full burden, and it does disclose that this is a read (GET) returning body, body_html, body_asl and a diff. It omits any permission/scope requirements, rate limits, or behavior when the version ID does not exist, so the disclosure is partial rather than complete.
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?
Three short fragments with the payload contents front-loaded; nothing is padded. The trailing doc reference is minor filler but not harmful.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description's field list is genuinely useful in lieu of one. Still missing for a version-detail fetch: how the diff is shaped, whether historical bodies can be large, and any auth requirements, leaving the definition only minimally sufficient.
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 100%, so both id and raw are already documented, and the description's mention of 'trimmed fields' only loosely gestures at the raw toggle. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the parameter-level work.
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 ('Get version detail') and enumerates the returned fields (body/body_html/body_asl + diff), so the agent knows exactly what it fetches. It does not, however, distinguish itself from sibling tools like yuque_get_doc_versions or yuque_diff_doc_versions.
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 endpoint path GET /doc_versions/:id, which implies a version ID is required but says nothing about when to choose this over yuque_get_doc_versions (listing) or yuque_diff_doc_versions (comparing). No prerequisites, no exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.