Retrieve learned patterns of successful and failed approaches from shared context to guide decisions and avoid repeating mistakes.
Get learned patterns (what works and what fails).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, so the description only needs to add context. It adds nothing about scope (global vs session), volume, filtering options, or cost — an agent cannot tell whether this returns a handful of entries or the entire pattern history.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is arguably too terse rather than too long, but every word earns its place.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing the return value, and it does not — no format, no fields, no ordering, no empty-state behavior. For a retrieval tool with a parameterless schema, that leaves the agent guessing what it will receive.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. It correctly implies a no-argument, unfiltered retrieval.
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 ('get') and resource ('learned patterns') and the parenthetical clarifies that patterns cover successes and failures, so an agent knows roughly what comes back. It does not distinguish this from siblings that also surface stored knowledge, such as search_context or get_audit_trail.
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?
No indication of when to call this instead of search_context, get_audit_trail, or session_status, and no mention of a prerequisite such as patterns existing because record_success/save_failure have been used. The agent must infer usage entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.