Clarifyprompt-MCP

get_trace

Fetch the full trace of a prompt optimization by ID, including system prompt and output, with configurable lookback up to 60 days.

Instructions

Fetch the full trace for an optimization ID, including system prompt + output. Looks back 7 days by default.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "get_trace"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`lookback_days`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.6.8Jun 2, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only reveals the default lookback period and that the trace includes system prompt and output. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, error handling, rate limits, or permission requirements, leaving significant gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise with two sentences, front-loading the primary action and content, then adding the temporal scope. No unnecessary words or repetitions.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, fetch operation), the description provides enough context: what it returns (full trace, system prompt, output) and default behavior. However, it lacks details on return format or error handling, which are not critical but would improve completeness. Since there is no output schema, the description could be slightly more explicit.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by stating the 'id' is an optimization ID and the 'lookback_days' defaults to 7. However, it does not explain the exact format of the id or provide further context for the parameters beyond what the schema already conveys (e.g., exclusiveMinimum, maximum).

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'Fetch', the resource 'full trace for an optimization ID', and includes what it contains ('system prompt + output'). It also provides the default lookback period, which helps differentiate from sibling tools like list_traces.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as list_traces or inspect_context. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.