rostra

query_decisions

Retrieve decisions from a workspace by text, ID, or format, detect contradictions, and include stale records to keep decision history traceable and auditable.

Instructions

Query decisions in the current workspace

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "working_directory": "<working_directory>"
    },
    "name": "query_decisions"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`limit`	No
`cursor`	No
`format`	No	summary
`threshold`	No
`query_text`	No
`decision_id`	No
`include_stale`	No
`continuation_id`	No
`working_directory`	Yes
`find_contradictions`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0-beta.2Sep 2, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavior disclosure. It implies a read-only query, but does not mention pagination behavior, stale-decision handling, contradiction checking, or any other operational traits an agent would need to anticipate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and front-loaded with the main action, so it is not bloated. However, for a tool with ten parameters, a single generic sentence provides very little structure or useful orientation.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The output schema covers return values, but the description is far too thin for a tool with ten parameters, no annotations, and multiple related siblings. It leaves out filter semantics, pagination, stale behavior, and when to use this instead of list_stale_decisions, so an agent would likely need to inspect schemas or guess.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds only the notion of 'current workspace,' which maps to working_directory. The other nine parameters are left entirely to schema names and defaults, with no guidance on how filters, cursor, continuation_id, or format interact.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies a specific action ('Query') and a specific resource ('decisions') within a defined scope ('current workspace'). It does not, however, distinguish this from sibling tools like list_stale_decisions, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or relationships to other decision-related tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server