Retrieve full content by ID, verify its receipts and hash for authenticity, then cache locally for reliable access.
Fetch and locally cache full content after validating its receipts and hash.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| content_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description is the sole source of behavioral context. It usefully discloses that the tool validates receipts and hash and then caches data locally, but it says nothing about what happens on validation failure or whether permission is required. That is a moderate but not complete disclosure.
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 sentence with no redundancy; the action is front-loaded and the qualifiers are compact. It could add a brief clarification for 'receipts', but overall it is well sized.
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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides the essential operation and side effect. Yet the lack of return-value details, failure semantics, and peer-versus-local disambiguation leaves the agent to infer some context from sibling names.
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?
The input schema has only content_id, but schema description coverage is 0% and the description never explains content_id. The parameter name and tool name make the intended use partially obvious, but the description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.
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 a concrete action: fetch full content, cache it locally, and validate receipts and hash first. The resource is 'full content', which distinguishes it from preview-like siblings, and the 'locally cache' clause gives a behavior that separates it from generic fetch variants.
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 does not name an alternative or state when not to use the tool, so explicit routing guidance is missing. However, the word 'full' and the validation/caching behavior implies this is the tool to choose when complete content with verification is needed rather than a preview or peer-only fetch.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.