fetchReturns the full content of a single document — invention, patent application, strategy, or report — identified by its ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The document identifier |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| url | Yes | ||
| text | Yes | ||
| title | Yes | ||
| metadata | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds the useful behavioral detail that this returns full content rather than metadata or a summary. It does not describe error behavior or auth requirements, but the annotations carry the safety profile.
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?
One sentence with no filler; the key action and resource are front-loaded, and the parameter is immediately implied by the ID reference.
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-only fetch with a full output schema and safety annotations, the description supplies the necessary domain context. It only lacks an explicit pointer to sibling contrast tools, which is more of a usage-guidance gap.
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 for the single id parameter is 100%, and the description confirms the id identifies the document to fetch. The description adds no format, source, or validation detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 ('Returns the full content of a single document') and names its resource types, so an agent knows what it does. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling retrieval tools like get_invention or get_review, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
Usage is implied: call this when you have a document ID and need the full content. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or naming of an alternative such as search or get_invention.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most invention lifecycle tools are clearly distinct, but there are overlapping pairs: add_comment and reply_to_comment both handle replies to threads, and fetch overlaps with get_invention for invention content. These overlaps require careful reading of descriptions to select the right tool.
Tool names generally follow a snake_case verb_noun pattern like list_inventions, create_invention, and update_invention. A few deviations such as fetch, search, and whoami break the pattern slightly, but the naming remains predictable overall.
At 18 tools, the set is slightly above the ideal scoped range and contains some functional overlap, making it feel heavier than necessary. Each tool has a plausible purpose, but the surface could be tightened by merging the overlapping comment and document-retrieval tools.
The tool set covers the core invention lifecycle well: create, get, list, update, validate, submit, and analyze, plus review and comment workflows. Minor gaps exist around comment management and lack of explicit review creation/deletion, but there are no major dead ends for common workflows.