List divergences (expected-vs-observed gaps) and filter by run, kind, severity, or status to investigate agent behavior issues.
List divergences (expected-vs-observed gaps) visible to the caller. Filter by run, kind, severity, status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | opaque pagination token from previous response next_cursor; pass through unchanged | |
| run_id | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| severity | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and volatility profile is covered. The description adds a useful scoping note ('visible to the caller'), but does not disclose pagination behavior, result ordering, or any other behavioral specifics. Given annotations, the bar is lower, but the description adds only marginal value beyond them.
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?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded: it states the action and resource, defines the term, and lists the filters in a single sentence. No words are wasted, and the most critical information appears first.
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 list tool with six optional parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal but sufficient to understand the basic operation. It lacks guidance on pagination (cursor/limit), which is indirectly described in the schema, and does not mention any default behavior. Given the complexity and lack of output schema, it could do more, but it is not dangerously incomplete.
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 coverage is only 17% (only cursor has a description). The description compensates by naming the filter dimensions (run, kind, severity, status), which clarifies those parameters' roles. However, it does not explain limit or cursor behavior, nor provide meaning for enum values. It partially covers the gap but not fully, so a 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?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('divergences'), and defines divergences as 'expected-vs-observed gaps' to disambiguate the concept. It also lists the filtering dimensions (run, kind, severity, status). However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like invariance_finding_list or invariance_monitor_list, so it stops short of a 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus other list-type tools (e.g., invariance_finding_list, invariance_monitor_list). It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or contexts where an alternative would be more appropriate. An agent has to infer usage from the resource name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.