Query exact run outputs in a research project, preserving producer, case, configuration, and observation coordinates so repeated results are not silently merged.
Find exact outputs across runs in this project. Retains producer, case, configuration and observation coordinates; never silently merges repeats.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| codeRefs | No | ||
| projectId | Yes | ||
| sampleIds | No | ||
| semantics | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description usefully adds that results retain producer/case/configuration/observation coordinates and are never silently merged, which is real behavioral context. It says nothing about ordering, pagination behavior, or result size limits despite limit/offset parameters.
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 tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence is dense but earns its place by disclosing de-duplication behavior.
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?
Six parameters, one required, with 0% schema description coverage and no output schema. Pagination semantics, filter combination rules, and the shape of returned results are all undocumented, which is a substantial gap for a query tool handling multiple coordinate types.
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 0% and the description never mentions projectId, limit, offset, codeRefs, sampleIds, or semantics by name. The phrase "producer, case, configuration and observation coordinates" hints at filter dimensions but cannot be mapped to any parameter, so the schema gaps stay unaddressed.
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 concrete verb ("Find") and resource ("exact outputs across runs in this project") with a scoping constraint. It does not name or differentiate itself from plausibly overlapping siblings such as rws_record_get or rws_get_context, so an agent can't be fully sure which to pick.
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, when not to, or which sibling to prefer for related lookups. Only an implicit usage is conveyed by the word "Find", leaving routing decisions entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.