Read a recovery session ledger without changing state or advancing revisions, so you can verify prior attempts and evidence before retrying edits.
Read-only inspection of a recovery session ledger without mutating state or advancing revision.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| session_id | Yes | Session ID to inspect | |
| project_key | Yes | Project identifier |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key behavioral traits: read-only, no state mutation, and no revision advancement. It does not cover return values, errors, or auth requirements, but the safety profile is clearly stated.
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 a single, well-formed sentence with no wasted words. The read-only constraint is front-loaded and immediately useful.
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 two-parameter read-only inspection tool with full schema coverage, the description supplies the essential non-mutation context. It does not explain return values despite there being no output schema, but the omission is minor for this tool type.
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%, so the schema already documents both required parameters. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline score of 3 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'inspect' a 'recovery session ledger.' It clearly identifies the read-only nature, though it does not distinguish from siblings, which are unrelated tools anyway.
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?
Usage is implied by 'read-only inspection' and 'without mutating state or advancing revision,' which tells when this tool is appropriate. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.