get_doc
Retrieve a single document by its Archbee document ID
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| docId | Yes | The Archbee document ID |
forkast-mcp-docs
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A3.5/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the basic action and provides no details on return format, error behavior (e.g., if ID not found), authentication requirements, or other side effects. For a read operation, more context could be given without needing annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
It is a single, concise sentence (10 words) that front-loads the verb and resource. Every word contributes to the meaning, with no unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter, the description is adequate, but it omits useful context such as what the returned document object looks like or how errors are surfaced. Without an output schema or annotations, the agent must infer the return structure from the tool name and sibling context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already documents the single parameter 'docId' as 'The Archbee document ID', and the description essentially repeats that. With 100% schema coverage, the description adds no new semantic value, but it is not lacking either.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Retrieve') and the specific resource ('a single document by its Archbee document ID'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_all_docs (retrieve all) and search_query/search_title (search by criteria).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The usage is implied by 'by its Archbee document ID' — an agent can infer to use this when the document ID is known. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like get_all_docs or search tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: retrieving all docs, retrieving one by ID, searching full-text, and searching by title. There is minimal overlap between search_query and search_title, but the descriptions make the distinction clear.
Naming Consistency4/5
The names follow a verb-first pattern (get_all_docs, get_doc, search_query, search_title), but they are not perfectly uniform: get_all_docs and get_doc use object-oriented names, while search_query and search_title use parameter-oriented names. The inconsistency is minor and does not hinder readability.
Tool Count5/5
With 4 tools, the server is well-scoped for documentation retrieval. The count is within the ideal range and each tool serves a distinct core function without unnecessary redundancy.
Completeness5/5
The server covers the essential read-only operations for documentation: fetching all docs, retrieving one, full-text search, and title-based search. No critical gaps are apparent for a documentation retrieval use case.