Retrieve a rejection record by ID to review why a pixel-art asset failed style checks. Provides the specific reason to help fix issues and maintain consistent art quality.
Get a rejection record by its ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Rejection ID (e.g. "rejection-001") |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It indicates a read operation ('Get') but does not mention any potential side effects, authorization requirements, rate limits, or error conditions. For a simple get it is adequate, but it adds no extra context beyond the verb and resource.
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?
A single, efficient sentence that conveys the entire purpose with no wasted words. The information is front-loaded and immediately actionable.
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 get-by-id operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description is structurally sufficient. However, it lacks explanation of what a rejection record is, when one would use this instead of find_rejections, and what happens if the ID does not exist. Given the broader context of the toolset and the presence of a sibling search tool, more context would help an agent decide when to call this.
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% — the 'id' parameter is already described in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning or usage details for the parameter, so it earns the baseline score of 3 for high schema 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?
The description states a clear verb (Get) and resource (rejection record) with the specific method of lookup (by ID). It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling art.memory.find_rejections, which implies a search/filter operation. However, it does not explicitly name the sibling as the alternative, so it misses the full 5.
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 implies usage when you already have a rejection ID, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to prefer this over find_rejections or any other access pattern. There is no statement of when not to use it or mention of prerequisites. The context is clear enough but lacks exclusions or alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.