Revly

Hent vesentlighetsgrunnlag fra Revly

hent_vesentlighet

Read-onlyIdempotent

Henter registrerte vesentlighetsgrenser og en begrenset begrunnelse for én eksplisitt oppdrags-ID. Manglende vurdering forblir synlig.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "oppdrag_id": "<oppdrag_id>"
    },
    "name": "hent_vesentlighet"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`oppdrag_id`	Yes	Eksplisitt oppdrags-ID fra Revly. Oppslag uten ID er ikke tillatt.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`aar`	No	Engagement year.
`status`	Yes	available for a visible engagement.
`grenser`	No	Registered materiality thresholds.
`sources`	No	Sources that contributed to the result.
`evidence`	No
`revly_url`	No	Link to the engagement in Revly.
`truncated`	No	True when the result was cut short.
`oppdrag_id`	No	Engagement ID, as text.
`begrunnelse`	No	Rationale, bounded to 2000 characters. Null when not recorded, including an empty or blank stored value.
`operation_id`	Yes	Revly operation ID for this read, recorded in the access log.
`missing_sources`	No	Sources with no record. Missing data stays visible and is never treated as a positive result.
`assessment_status`	No	available or not_assessed. not_assessed is never a positive conclusion.
`begrunnelse_status`	No	mangler when no rationale text is recorded, even if thresholds are set. Never read a missing rationale as an assessment.
`begrunnelse_avkortet`	No	True when the rationale was cut to 2000 characters.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds two behavioural notes beyond that: the justification is deliberately limited in scope, and a missing assessment stays visible rather than being silently omitted. It says nothing about error behaviour or response shape, but an output schema exists to carry the latter.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the resource and the single-ID constraint front-loaded and the absence-handling note trailing as intended.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, annotations declaring it safe and idempotent, and an output schema, the description is complete enough to call correctly. Only a pointer to when a sibling tool is the better choice is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter already documents the explicit-ID requirement and the numeric pattern. The description's 'én eksplisitt oppdrags-ID' merely restates it, adding no format or edge-case detail beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a concrete verb+resource pair: retrieving registered materiality thresholds plus a limited justification, scoped to a single explicit engagement ID. It is clear what is returned, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with siblings like hent_oppdrag_tilstand or hent_funnvurderinger.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: the tool applies to one explicit oppdrag_id, and the schema reinforces that lookup without an ID is not permitted. No sibling is named as an alternative, and there is no statement of when this tool should be preferred over the other hent_* tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Revly tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?