get_fielding_progressGet qualifying completions versus the current target, completed interview quality counts, and a rate-based expected finish when enough progress exists.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| study_id | Yes | ||
| organization_id | No | Organization for this operation and billing. Use list_organizations to choose an active membership. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes | Current fielding progress. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / organization_id / descriptionPrevious value: -"Platform admins only: select an organization for this operation. Required when changing another organization’s study or using its wallet."New value: +"Organization for this operation and billing. Use list_organizations to choose an active membership."Input schema / properties / organization_idAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Platform admins only: select an organization for this operation. Required when changing another organization’s study or using its wallet.",
+ "maxLength": 128,
+ "minLength": 1,
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseInput schema / properties / study_id / patternAdded value: +"^([0-9a-fA-F]{8}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[1-8][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[89abAB][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[0-9a-fA-F]{12}|00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000|ffffffff-ffff-ffff-ffff-ffffffffffff)$"Output schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Output schema / properties / result / properties / completed / maximumAdded value: +9007199254740991Output schema / properties / result / properties / quality_mix / additionalProperties / maximumAdded value: +9007199254740991Output schema / properties / result / properties / quality_mix / propertyNamesAdded value: +{
+ "type": "string"
+}Output schema / properties / result / properties / target / anyOfPrevious value: -[
- {
- "type": "integer"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
-]New value: +[
+ {
+ "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+ "minimum": -9007199254740991,
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: it discloses that the expected-finish projection is conditional ('when enough progress exists'), signaling a nullable/absent field, which helps the agent interpret results.
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 front-loaded sentence that opens with the verb and then lists the three returned metrics with no filler. It is dense but every clause corresponds to real output, though the packed triple-list is slightly harder to scan than a structured breakdown would be.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained, and annotations cover safety. The remaining gap is routing: with many sibling read tools, the description does not tell the agent which adjacent tool answers a different question, leaving selection to inference.
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 is 50%: organization_id is documented in-schema (including a pointer to list_organizations), while study_id is undocumented but self-evident as the required UUID. The description contributes nothing about either parameter, which is acceptable but not value-adding at this coverage level.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Get fielding progress') and enumerates exactly what is returned: qualifying completions versus target, completed interview quality counts, and a rate-based expected finish. The purpose is unambiguous, but it never names or distinguishes itself from close siblings like get_study or get_interview_usage_stats.
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?
There is no guidance on when to call this versus get_study or get_interview_usage_stats, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. The clause 'when enough progress exists' describes a data condition in the output, not a condition for choosing this tool.
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.