Retrieve the proof evidence associated with a specific stored result ID, providing the formal proof steps needed to verify mathematical claims in the paper graph.
Return proof evidence for one stored evidence result.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Return' indicates a retrieval operation with no mutation, and 'one stored evidence result' signals a single-record lookup, but the description does not disclose edge cases (e.g., missing result_id, not-found behavior) or the nature of the returned evidence.
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 one sentence with no filler; the key action and target are front-loaded. It is concise without being a tautology, though the brevity comes at the cost of parameter and context detail.
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 zero parameter coverage, the description leaves ambiguity about what 'proof evidence' consists of, what result_id references, and how this differs from sibling evidence/result getters. It is functional but under-specified for an agent that must select among many workspace_get_* 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 coverage is 0% and the description does not explicitly define result_id. It only implies that result_id identifies the stored evidence result, leaving the agent to infer the type, format, and source of the ID.
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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('proof evidence') and scopes it to 'one stored evidence result,' which conveys the core function. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like workspace_get_evidence or workspace_get_result, but the resource phrase is specific enough to avoid tautology.
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 guidance on when to choose this tool over workspace_get_evidence, workspace_get_proof_dependencies, or workspace_get_result. The single sentence implies use when proof evidence for a result is needed, but it provides no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.