Read one job's CAD data: layer-group scales, selection ranges, picked points, write settings, layer names, and selected entities in real mm. Use limit/offset for large selections.
Read one job: scales per layer group, selection range, picked points, write settings, layer names and the selected entities (real mm). Use limit/offset for big selections.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| job_id | Yes | ||
| offset | No | ||
| exchange | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the payload contents and notes pagination via limit/offset, which is useful beyond the schema. It says nothing about read-only guarantees, permissions, error behavior for a missing/invalid job_id, or stable ordering across pages.
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?
A single dense sentence plus a short imperative second sentence; the core payload description is front-loaded and no sentence is filler. Slightly compressed to the point of being list-like, but nothing is wasted.
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 read tool with no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description covers the content of the return well and the pagination knobs, but omits the 'exchange' parameter's meaning and any routing against the sibling gaihen_jobs/gaihen_status tools.
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 0% across 4 parameters. The description explains limit/offset semantics ('for big selections') and job_id is implied by 'one job', but the 'exchange' parameter is completely undocumented in both schema and description, leaving an orphan parameter.
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 and resource ('Read one job') and enumerates what the read returns (scales per layer group, selection range, picked points, write settings, layer names, entities in real mm). The 'one job' phrasing implies single-job detail as opposed to the sibling gaihen_jobs list, but it never names that sibling, so differentiation is left to inference.
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 trailing 'Use limit/offset for big selections' is real usage guidance for pagination, but there is no statement of when to prefer this tool over gaihen_status, gaihen_jobs, or gaihen_preview, nor any prerequisite on how a job_id is obtained.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.