Read the append-only state of a Gold Rush Agent Package by package_id. Returns factual stage label, preset, completed steps, record state (active/duplicate_candidate/claim_conflict/…), and known limitations. Public_safe only — never leaks owner/operator/private data. Measurement only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| package_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds context: append-only, returns factual data, public-safe, and lists fields. No contradictions.
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?
Three concise sentences front-load the action and key details, with no unnecessary words.
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?
For a simple read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, returns, safety, and read-only nature. Could mention pagination limits but overall sufficient.
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 has one string parameter with 0% coverage. The description says 'by package_id' implying the parameter, but lacks details on format or constraints. Adequate for a single obvious param.
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 clearly states the tool reads the append-only state of a Gold Rush Agent Package by package_id, listing specific return fields. It distinguishes from sibling gold_rush tools (agent_run, report, start) by focusing on package status.
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?
It mentions 'Public_safe only' and 'Measurement only,' implying safe use for queries, but does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool versus alternatives, nor provide when-not guidance.
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.