Reads part of a stashed result by reference, enabling filtered field, path, and value extraction plus regex text search to retrieve only needed data.
Read part of a stashed result by ref. Data: path/where/fields/group_by. Text: search (regex).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | Yes | ||
| path | No | Dotted path, e.g. data.items or items.*.user | |
| limit | No | ||
| where | No | Filters: key=v, key!=v, key>n, key<n, key~regex | |
| fields | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| search | No | ||
| group_by | No |
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=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description is consistent and adds that it reads 'part of a stashed result,' but it does not disclose behavior around invalid refs, pagination, or result size.
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 compact and front-loaded, with clear Data/Text labels. The fragmentary style is efficient but slightly cryptic, which keeps it from being a perfect 5 on structure.
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 an eight-parameter tool with only 25% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits pagination semantics (limit/offset), ref behavior, group_by details, and sibling differentiation from atr_read.
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 only 25%, so the description must compensate. It names five of eight parameters and categorizes them as data-oriented (path, where, fields, group_by) or text-oriented (search regex), but it leaves limit, offset, ref, and group_by semantics unexplained.
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: 'Read part of a stashed result by ref.' That is clear enough to distinguish it from generic read tools, but it does not explicitly differentiate it from the sibling atr_read, which likely also reads stashed results.
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 'Data: path/where/fields/group_by' and 'Text: search (regex)' labels imply how to choose parameters for structured vs. text queries. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of atr_read or atr_search_code, and no exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.