Retrieve the current protocol state of a research session to inspect progress and debug issues without accessing full source text.
Debug/inspection tool. Returns compact protocol state, not full source text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| research_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | ||
| status | Yes | ||
| agent_rules | No | ||
| next_action | No | ||
| quality_gate | No | ||
| protocol_version | No | 7.2 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses that the return is a compact protocol state rather than full text, which is useful, but it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, permissions, or side effects. For a get/inspection tool, this is partial coverage.
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 tightly written sentences with no filler. The first sentence labels the tool's category and the second states its core output constraint. It is appropriately sized, though it could add parameter context without becoming bloated.
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?
The description is incomplete for a one-parameter tool with no annotations. It fails to explain the research_id parameter or provide usage context. While the output schema covers the return shape, the missing parameter semantics and no guidance make the overall definition inadequate.
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 the description does not mention research_id at all. The single required parameter is completely undocumented in both the description and schema, leaving the agent without guidance on what value to provide.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Returns compact protocol state.' It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly saying 'not full source text,' which differentiates it from get_source_context. The 'Debug/inspection tool' label further clarifies its role.
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 'Debug/inspection tool' label implies it is meant for troubleshooting and inspecting state, but no explicit when-to-use or alternative conditions are given. An agent must infer usage from this context, with no exclusion or sibling comparison.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.