Retrieve all evidence links for a specific capture by providing its ID, returning a list of linked resources for review and analysis.
List every evidence link on a capture (case/run/workflow_event/node), returning { links }. Captures are standalone evidence; link a capture to a target with invariance_capture_link.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Capture id, e.g. "cap_abc123". |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only and open-world behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations by specifying the return shape ('{ links }'), the exhaustive scope ('every evidence link'), and the conceptual distinction that captures are standalone evidence.
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 no filler: the action and return shape are front-loaded, and the sibling tool for linking is stated in the same breath.
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 read-only list operation with one well-documented parameter, the description covers the resource, scope, target types, return shape, and relationship to the linking operation. Nothing essential is missing.
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% and the sole parameter 'id' is already documented with type and example. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 ('List every evidence link on a capture'), enumerates the capture target types, and names the sibling link-creation tool. The description clearly differentiates listing links from creating them.
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 clear context for when to use the tool: when listing all evidence links on a capture. It explicitly routes to invariance_capture_link for creating a link, though it does not discuss when to prefer capture_get or capture_unlink.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.