Read a standing insight's full start, themes or wins detail and supporting evidence. Use themeId to open an individual theme returned by the themes card.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| card | Yes | ||
| themeId | No | ||
| brandSlug | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | ||
| dataAsOf | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "data": {},
+ "dataAsOf": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "data"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that evidence is included and that themeId opens an individual theme. No additional behavioral context (pagination, auth, response format) is provided. With annotations already covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a usage note. No waste, but could be slightly more structured. Efficient overall.
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 explained. The description covers the basic purpose and themeId usage, but given 0% schema description coverage and 3 parameters, it does not explain brandSlug or the card enum fully. It is adequate but incomplete for correct parameter usage.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only mentions themeId and its relationship to the themes card. The required parameters brandSlug and card (and their enum values) are not explained at all. This is a significant gap for parameter semantics.
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+resource: 'Read a standing insight's full start, themes or wins detail and supporting evidence.' This is clear about what the tool does and its scope (three card types). It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like parse_dashboard_wins or parse_evidence, but the card enum and themeId param make the distinction inferable.
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 second sentence provides clear usage guidance: 'Use themeId to open an individual theme returned by the themes card.' This tells the agent when to supply themeId. However, it does not state when to use this tool versus parse_dashboard_wins or parse_evidence, which are directly named siblings.
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.