Inspect identity, runtime, artifacts, or query data for an existing CAD2GIS run to verify expected identity and diagnose conversion issues; use a run directory, not project config directories.
Inspect identity/runtime, or artifacts/query for an EXISTING run; project config directories are not run_dir.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scope | No | identity | |
| run_dir | No | ||
| graph_path | No | ||
| expected_identity | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.8.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only discloses the existing-run constraint and a run_dir caveat. It does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, permissions, side effects, or what inspection entails beyond the scope labels.
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 definition is a single compact sentence with no filler, and the most important constraint (EXISTING run) is front-loaded. Its brevity borders on cryptic, but it does not waste space.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but the tool still has four parameters at 0% schema coverage and no annotations. The description leaves graph_path, expected_identity, and core safety expectations unexplained, making it incomplete for an agent to invoke confidently.
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%, so the description must explain all four parameters. It maps the scope values loosely to the enum and cautions that config directories are not run_dir, but it says nothing about graph_path or expected_identity, leaving half the parameters undocumented.
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 gives a specific verb ('Inspect') and names the resources/scopes (identity, runtime, artifacts, query) tied to an existing run. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as inspect_run, audit_run, or get_runtime_status.
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?
It implies the tool is for an EXISTING run and warns that project config directories are not run_dir, which gives some usage context. However, it never states when to choose this tool over siblings or when not to use it beyond that single path caveat.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.