get_node_contextRetrieve a knowledge node's complete context: goal memberships, prerequisites, dependents, learning entries, verification history, and deterministic diagnosis. Gives AI tutors full node insight.
Read a knowledge node, its goal memberships, prerequisites, dependents, learning entries, verification history, and deterministic diagnosis.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| node_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds a behavioral nuance by mentioning a 'deterministic diagnosis', indicating that diagnosis is computed rather than arbitrary, which is useful context. However, it does not elaborate on return format, error behavior, or data consistency, so the added value beyond annotations is modest.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently lists all returned components with no redundant words. Every element earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.
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?
The description outlines the full set of returned components (goal memberships, prerequisites, dependents, learning entries, verification history, deterministic diagnosis), giving a clear picture of the output. No output schema exists, so this list effectively serves as the return contract. It does not mention potential errors or pagination, but for a single-node read tool with a single parameter, this is adequate.
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% and the description does not explain the 'node_id' parameter at all. While the parameter name is self-explanatory, the description fails to explicitly map 'node_id' to the node being read, nor does it add constraints or format details. With zero schema documentation, the description carries the full burden and does not meet it.
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 action ('Read') and names the resource (knowledge node) along with the full list of components (goal memberships, prerequisites, dependents, learning entries, verification history, deterministic diagnosis). It distinguishes itself from sibling 'diagnose_node' by explicitly including diagnosis as part of the context, preventing ambiguity.
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 implies that this tool is for reading comprehensive node context, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like 'search_knowledge' or 'diagnose_node'. No when-not-to-use or exclusionary criteria are given, leaving selection largely to the agent's inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.