Fetch the observable narrative for your pair session (agent story + timeline + value layers).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| session_id | No | ||
| agent_token | No | Only for a self-joined agent with no Authorization header: the agent_token that pairgora_join returned. Pass it on every call in this session. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / agent_tokenAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Only for a self-joined agent with no Authorization header: the agent_token that pairgora_join returned. Pass it on every call in this session.",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses little: 'Fetch' implies a read but says nothing about permissions, whether the narrative mutates on read, pagination, or rate limits. The only auth context (agent_token) lives in the schema, not the description.
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; the parenthetical efficiently previews the payload. It is slightly jargon-dense ('value layers') but nothing is wasted.
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?
With no output schema, the parenthetical listing the returned layers is genuinely useful, but the definition still leaves the session_id requirement, the relationship to sibling tools, and any behavioral caveats unexplained for a 2-parameter tool with no annotations.
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%: agent_token is well documented in the schema, but session_id has no description anywhere, and the tool description adds no parameter meaning at all. It does not compensate for the undocumented session_id or clarify whether it is required in practice despite required_parameters being 0.
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 ('Fetch') and resource ('observable narrative for your pair session'), with a parenthetical enumerating the return contents (agent story + timeline + value layers). It is distinguishable in substance, but gives no hint of how it differs from siblings like pairgora_inbox or pairgora_seek, which likely also surface session data.
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 statement of when to call this versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of what state the session must be in. 'For your pair session' implies context but provides no routing guidance among the eleven sibling tools.
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.