Retrieve the latest results from a monitor.
Returns the most recent run's results including run_info, records, and all_records.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| api_key | No | CatchAll API key. Optional if provided via x-api-key header or CATCHALL_API_KEY env var. | |
| monitor_id | Yes | The monitor ID to pull results from |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'retrieve' suggests a read-only operation, the description does not explicitly confirm it is non-destructive, mention authentication requirements, error handling, or what happens if no runs exist. This lack of context is a significant gap.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and contains no extraneous words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and return structure.
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?
Given that an output schema exists, the description adequately complements it by listing high-level return elements. However, it lacks mention of edge cases (e.g., non-existent monitor) and does not leverage sibling tool context to clarify its specific niche. Still, it is fairly complete for a simple data retrieval tool.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters, so the schema already provides clear meaning. The tool description adds minimal value beyond stating that 'monitor_id' is used to pull results. Thus, baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 the specific verb 'Retrieve' and clearly identifies the resource as 'the latest results from a monitor'. It distinguishes from siblings like pull_monitor_csv (which returns CSV) and pull_results (which may be more general). The return fields are listed, providing clarity.
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 usage for obtaining the most recent run's results but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like pull_monitor_csv or pull_results. No guidance on prerequisites or when not to use it is provided, leading to an implied rather than explicit usage context.
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.
Each tool is scoped to a specific resource type and action, with clear distinctions between similarly named operations (e.g., pull_results vs pull_job_csv, initialize_query vs validate_query). No two tools appear to perform the same function.
Tools consistently use snake_case verb_noun patterns (create_X, get_X, list_X, update_X, delete_X), with domain-specific verbs like submit, pull, initialize, and validate adding semantic clarity. Minor deviations such as pull_* vs get_* and compound names like create_dataset_from_csv are still predictable.
At 60 tools, the server is heavily overstuffed for a single MCP surface. While the broad domain (datasets, entities, jobs, monitors, projects, webhooks) justifies many operations, the sheer volume exceeds typical recommended limits and includes near-duplicates (pull_results vs pull_job_csv, get_dataset vs get_dataset_status), making agent tool selection unwieldy.
The tool set provides robust CRUD and lifecycle coverage for all major resources, including special operations like csv import, webhook mapping, and monitor enable/disable. Minor gaps such as the absence of a get_monitor (single monitor details) and no cancel_job can be worked around via list_monitors and waiting for job completion.