get_store_recordsRead records from a data store, including keys, values, and timestamps, to inspect what a flow has stored or verify the data it is about to read.
Read records of a data store: their keys, values and timestamps. Use it to see what a flow has stored, or to check the data a flow is about to read.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| store_id | Yes | The ID of the store (see list_stores). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a non-destructive read, so the description is not carrying the safety burden. It adds useful return-content detail (keys, values, timestamps) but says nothing about result-set limits or how the default page size of 20 / max of 100 affects completeness of what is returned.
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?
Two short sentences with zero filler, front-loading what is read and following with the practical scenario. Every clause contributes either output shape or usage intent.
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?
With no output schema, the description usefully covers the shape of returned records, which is valuable. However, for a paginated listing tool with three parameters, omitting any note about paging or truncation leaves a meaningful gap for an agent that needs complete data.
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 only 33%: store_id is documented in the schema as pointing to list_stores, while limit and offset have only types, bounds, and defaults. The description does not explain pagination or paging behavior at all, so it fails to compensate for the low coverage.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Read records of a data store') and even enumerates the returned fields (keys, values, timestamps). It is clearly distinct from siblings like list_stores and set_store_record, though it does not name those siblings directly.
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?
Provides concrete when-to-use context: inspecting what a flow has stored, or verifying data a flow is about to read. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance or naming alternatives such as list_stores for discovering store IDs (that hint lives only in the schema).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.