List filled evaluation forms of an application with evaluator, summary score (strong-yes to strong-no) and summary text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| view | No | summary replaces summary_text with a 200-char summary_text_preview | summary |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseInput schema / properties / id / descriptionRemoved value: -"Application ID."Input schema / properties / view / descriptionPrevious value: -"Response shape. Default `summary` replaces `summary_text` with a 200-char `summary_text_preview`. Use `full` only when the full evaluator commentary is needed; call hires_get_evaluation for a single record."New value: +"summary replaces summary_text with a 200-char summary_text_preview"Input schema / properties / viewAdded value: +{
+ "default": "summary",
+ "description": "Response shape. Default `summary` replaces `summary_text` with a 200-char `summary_text_preview`. Use `full` only when the full evaluator commentary is needed; call hires_get_evaluation for a single record.",
+ "enum": [
+ "summary",
+ "full"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark read-only, non-destructive. The description adds that only filled forms are returned and mentions the score scale and text, but doesn't cover pagination, ordering, empty results, or authorization scope.
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 clear sentence starting with the action verb and object; includes the key output fields concisely without clutter.
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 covers core purpose and output fields but omits the effect of the view parameter, possible empty results, and doesn't distinguish from related single-evaluation retrieval.
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 exposes `id` and `view` but the description does not explain what values `view` can take or how they change output; it only implies id refers to an application. The description adds almost no meaning beyond the schema for parameters.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('filled evaluation forms of an application'), and names the returned contents: evaluator, summary score range, and summary text. It clearly distinguishes this listing operation from a generic app-level list or a single-evaluation getter.
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?
It gives clear context: list filled evaluations for a particular application. It doesn't explicitly mention when to use an alternative (e.g., get_evaluation), but the application-scoped focus makes the intended use reasonably clear.
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.