Fetch a previously produced verdict by its id or by trace_id (your org only).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| trace_id | No | ||
| verdict_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "description": "A JSON object (returned as text in result.content[0].text). Diagnosis tools return {matched, family, fix, confidence, source, action_class, auto_safe, gate}; other tools return their own JSON result.",
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds a genuinely non-annotated constraint, 'your org only', which tells the agent about tenant scoping, but it says nothing about behavior when the id is unknown or not in the org.
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. Slightly compressed to the point of ambiguity ('its id' refers to an unstated antecedent), but structurally efficient.
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 no explanation. However, with zero required parameters and no param documentation, the description leaves open whether verdict_id, trace_id, or either is needed to call it correctly, which is a real gap for a lookup 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?
Schema description coverage is 0% for both parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It only restates the parameter names ('by its id or by trace_id') without format, precedence when both are supplied, or what happens if neither is given (both are optional in the schema).
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?
Clear verb (fetch) plus resource (verdict) and states the two lookup keys, id or trace_id. It does not distinguish itself from trace-related siblings like diagnose_trace or convert_trace, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
'Previously produced verdict' implies the record must already exist, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no mention of what to do when no verdict exists, and no named alternative. Usage is only implied.
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.