Retrieve a strategy's decision trees and aggregated statistics to analyze structured reasoning paths. Pass a strategy ID or name to get its full context for evaluation.
Get a strategy with its trees and basic statistics (aggregated view across trees in the strategy)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| strategyIdOrName | Yes | The ID or name of the strategy |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.6.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful behavioral context by stating the result combines strategy, trees, and basic statistics as an aggregate view, and 'Get' implies a read operation. It does not go further into error behavior, permissions, or what 'basic statistics' includes, so it is adequate but not rich.
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 one tight sentence that front-loads the core action and result, with a parenthetical that clarifies the aggregation scope. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition of the parameter schema.
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 one-parameter read-style tool with no output schema, the description gives a sufficient mental model of what will be returned: the strategy, its trees, and aggregated basic statistics. It could be more explicit about which statistics are included or how this relates to session context, but these are minor gaps for such a simple tool.
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 single parameter strategyIdOrName is 100% documented in the schema with 'The ID or name of the strategy', so the schema already carries the semantic weight. The description adds nothing specific about the parameter, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage; baseline 3 applies.
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 names a specific verb ('Get'), a resource ('strategy'), and the returning content ('trees and basic statistics'), and clarifies the view is aggregated across trees. This distinguishes it from nearby siblings like get_strategy or list_trees_by_strategy by making the scope explicit.
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 phrase 'aggregated view across trees' implies this tool is for strategy-level overview, which gives some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over get_strategy, get_tree_stats, or list_trees_by_strategy, nor does it mention any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.