Fetch summaries for multiple agent response tests by their IDs to review test results and status. Provide up to 1000 unique test IDs per request.
Get Agent Response Test Summaries By Ids
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| test_ids | Yes | List of test IDs to fetch. No duplicates allowed. Prefer at most 1000 IDs per request. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, while the description's 'Get' strongly implies a plain read; the description does nothing to clarify that mismatch, nor does it mention pagination, batching limits, or auth. Since annotations carry some signal already, this is not scored 1, but the description adds no behavioral value beyond the title.
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?
It is a single short, front-loaded phrase with no padding, which is good. But it is a title fragment rather than an informative sentence, so the brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient communication.
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 by-ID fetch with no output schema, the description should at least say what a 'summary' contains or when to prefer it over the singular/list siblings. Given the dense sibling namespace around agent response tests, the current text leaves the agent guessing about selection.
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% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema (no duplicates, prefer at most 1000 IDs per request). The description's 'By Ids' merely echoes this, adding no format or batching guidance, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 names a verb and resource ('Get Agent Response Test Summaries') and adds the scoping qualifier 'By Ids', so the basic intent is clear. However, it reads as a near-restatement of the tool title and does nothing to distinguish it from close siblings such as get_agent_response_test_route (singular test) or list_chat_response_tests_route.
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 use this tool versus the singular get_agent_response_test_route or the list route, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer the batch-by-ID use case entirely from the parameter schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.