Retrieve past evaluation executions for a monitor to review status, trigger, matched nodes, and timing. Use to audit or debug monitor performance.
List past evaluation executions for a monitor (each has status, trigger, matched_node_ids, timing).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | opaque pagination token from previous response next_cursor; pass through unchanged |
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 and openWorldHint, so the description adds value by specifying returned fields (status, trigger, matched_node_ids, timing). It does not disclose pagination behavior or any other side effects, but given read-only is covered by annotations, this is adequate. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
One sentence, no wasted words, and front-loaded with the core action (List). It is concise and structured well for quick scanning, though it could benefit from a brief mention of pagination without hurting conciseness.
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?
The description lacks critical operational details: it does not mention that the result is paginated, how to use cursor, or what limit controls. For a tool with an opaque cursor parameter, this is a significant gap. The returned fields are mentioned, but pagination usage is entirely absent, making it incomplete for an agent to call correctly.
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 33% (only cursor has a description), and the tool description does not explain 'id' or 'limit'. It implies 'id' is the monitor id but does not state it explicitly, and 'limit' and cursor semantics are left largely to the schema's cursor description. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving parameters under-specified.
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 specific verb (List), a resource (past evaluation executions), and scopes it to a monitor, which distinguishes it from generic list tools. Listing the fields (status, trigger, matched_node_ids, timing) adds specificity. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like invariance_monitor_findings, so it's not 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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as invariance_monitor_findings or invariance_finding_list. The description only states the action without any criteria for selection, leaving the agent to infer from the name and context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.