Retrieve details of a specific cycle by providing its UUID and the project UUID that contains it, enabling project data lookup.
Get details of a specific cycle
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cycle_id | Yes | The uuid identifier of the cycle to get | |
| project_id | Yes | The uuid identifier of the project containing the cycle |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.5-8seneca.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get details' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if authentication is required, rate limits apply, what happens on invalid IDs, or the response format. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.
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?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a read operation with two required parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'details' are returned, error conditions, or behavioral traits, leaving significant gaps for the agent to operate effectively.
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 100%, with clear descriptions for both 'cycle_id' and 'project_id' parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without compensating value.
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 'Get details of a specific cycle' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('cycle'), making the purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what 'details' include and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_cycles' or 'get_cycle_issues', leaving room for ambiguity about scope.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'list_cycles' (for multiple cycles) and 'get_cycle_issues' (for cycle-related issues), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.