get_findingFetch one test or QA finding by ID to review its complete evidence: exact request and response, failed checks, stack trace or console errors, diagnosis, and fix guidance.
Read-only. One finding with its full evidence: the exact request and response, failed checks, stack trace or console errors when captured, the diagnosis and how to fix it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | r123 or f456 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so 'Read-only' is redundant, but the description adds real value by disclosing exactly what the response contains (raw request/response, failed checks, stack traces, console errors, diagnosis, fix). It omits behavior for a missing/invalid id.
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?
Two tight sentences with the key classification ('Read-only') front-loaded and the content list kept dense and useful. Minor redundancy: 'Read-only' duplicates the readOnlyHint annotation.
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 output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return values and does so thoroughly, listing every evidence category an agent would receive. Only error/not-found behavior is left unexplained.
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 the single id parameter is documented in the schema ('r123 or f456'). The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.
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 ('One finding with its full evidence'), and enumerates the payload contents, which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling list_findings. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.
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 singular 'One finding' implies fetching details for a known id after a listing call, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing away from list_findings/get_issue. Usage is inferable but not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.