get_claimRead one versioned public claim with its scope, evidence and review dates.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| locale | No | ||
| claim_id | Yes | ||
| claim_version | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tool | Yes | ||
| as_of | Yes | ||
| result | No | ||
| status | Yes | ||
| receipt | Yes | ||
| evidence | No | ||
| no_action | No | ||
| request_id | Yes | ||
| assumptions | Yes | ||
| limitations | Yes | ||
| next_actions | Yes | ||
| response_kind | Yes | ||
| schema_version | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the 'Read' wording agrees with them. The description adds only 'versioned' and 'public' context; it does not disclose default-version behavior, missing-claim handling, or other runtime traits.
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 with no filler: 'Read one versioned public claim...' leads with the verb and scope, and every phrase earns its place.
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 output schema and robust annotations supply safety and return-shape details, so the description need not repeat them. It is still thin on how version selection works and does not point to a discovery path, leaving the definition adequate but not complete.
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%, and the description never maps its wording to claim_id, claim_version, or locale. 'Versioned' gestures at claim_version, and 'scope, evidence and review dates' describes content rather than inputs, so the description does not compensate for the schema's lack of parameter descriptions.
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 names a specific read operation on a 'claim' resource and qualifies it as 'one versioned public claim' with explicit content fields (scope, evidence, review dates). The singular object and 'Read' verb clearly separate it from the search_* and calculation siblings.
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 that this tool is for retrieving a specific claim version, but it never states when to use it versus search_public_knowledge or how to obtain a claim_id. Usage is therefore only implied, not explicitly guided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.