Retrieve the full content of a stored document using its unique ID. Use this when you need to access a specific document's text after searching or adding it.
Fetch a single document's full content by its id.
Args: document_id: The id returned by add_document or search_documents.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| document_id | Yes |
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 behavioral disclosure burden. It makes clear that this is a read-only retrieval operation returning full content, but it does not describe what happens for a missing/invalid document_id, any error behavior, or whether 'full content' includes metadata. This is acceptable but not richly transparent.
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?
The description is extremely concise: one purpose sentence and one parameter clarification. It is front-loaded with the core behavior and contains no filler or redundant restatements of the tool name.
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 one-parameter read operation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, input origin, and return nature. The main gap is the lack of edge-case behavior (e.g., not found), but given the simplicity of the tool, the description is near-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?
The schema only defines document_id as a required string, while the description adds meaningful provenance: the id is returned by add_document or search_documents. This tells the agent exactly where to get a valid value and helps avoid guessing, compensating for the schema's 0% description coverage.
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 specific verb ('Fetch'), resource ('a single document'), and scope ('full content by its id'), which makes the tool's main purpose immediately clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like list_documents or search_documents, but the wording is specific enough to infer the difference.
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 provides clear context: use this tool when you have a document_id and want the full content, and it notes that the id comes from add_document or search_documents. It stops short of listing explicit exclusions or when not to use this tool in favor of a sibling, but the intended usage is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.