Retrieve shared mission state and recent journal events by project and mission ID. Use it to track progress and coordinate subagents across MCP harnesses.
Read shared mission state and recent journal events
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mission_id | Yes | ||
| project_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.2.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'Read' implies non-mutation, but the description never states permissions, the meaning of 'recent' (no window or limit), or whether the two data streams are returned together. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a substantial gap.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the retrieval scope is stated immediately. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly the cause of the missing guidance noted elsewhere.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and undocumented parameters, the description does not cover enough for an agent to invoke this tool confidently. It should at minimum explain the two identifiers, what 'recent' means, and what state is returned.
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% and neither mission_id nor project_id is mentioned in the description. The agent must infer from the tool name that mission_id selects the mission and project_id scopes it, and gets no guidance on format or ID provenance.
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 verb ('Read') and two resources ('shared mission state', 'recent journal events'), so the agent knows this is a retrieval tool. However, 'mission state' and 'journal events' are not defined, and nothing distinguishes it from siblings like memory_checkpoint or health_check, which could plausibly be confused with state inspection.
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 statement of when to use this tool versus the other ten siblings, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The only implicit cue is that it reads 'shared' state, which is not enough to route an agent reliably.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.