prodpad_get_objective_keyresultsRetrieve every key result linked to a specific objective by UUID, so you can review OKR progress and measurable outcomes.
Get all key results under a specific objective.
Args:
id (string): Objective UUID
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The resource ID (numeric or UUID) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that: no ordering, no emptiness behavior when an objective has no key results, no permissions note.
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?
Front-loaded one-sentence purpose followed by a compact args block; nothing is padded. The args block is somewhat redundant against the schema, which keeps it short of a 5.
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 getter with full annotation and schema coverage, the definition is minimally sufficient. It leaves unresolved which key-result query tool to choose among the siblings and gives no hint about return shape, which matters since there is no output schema.
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 there is a single parameter, so the schema already documents 'id' as 'The resource ID (numeric or UUID)'. The description merely repeats the parameter name and calls it an 'Objective UUID', adding no syntax or format detail — baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 (Get) and resource (key results) scoped to a parent objective, which is more than a restatement of the name. However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings prodpad_get_product_keyresults and prodpad_list_keyresults, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone which of the three to call.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the alternative tools that also return key results (by product, or unfiltered). The only usage signal is implicit in the name and the required 'id' argument.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.