Query interaction history and reputation for any agent, tool, or service before choosing between providers to compare success rates, latency, and failure types.
Get the interaction history and reputation of an agent, tool, or service. Call this before choosing between providers to make an informed decision.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target | Yes | Identifier of the agent/tool/service. e.g. 'mcp:vendor/tool-name' or 'agent:some-agent-id' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.11Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely fails to. It implies a read via "Get" but never confirms read-only semantics, permission requirements, latency, or what shape the reputation data takes, which matters because no output schema is provided either.
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 short sentences with zero filler, front-loading what is retrieved before the when-to-use guidance. Every clause earns its place.
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?
Purpose, target source, and usage timing are covered for a simple one-parameter read tool, but with no output schema and no annotations the description should say more about what 'reputation' and 'interaction history' actually return so an agent can interpret and trust the result.
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 target parameter already documents the identifier format with examples ('mcp:vendor/tool-name', 'agent:some-agent-id'). The description adds nothing beyond what the schema provides, so the 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 (Get) and resource (interaction history and reputation) scoped to agents, tools, or services. It is clearly distinguishable from the write-oriented record_interaction and comparison-oriented compare_tools siblings, though it never names them explicitly.
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?
"Call this before choosing between providers to make an informed decision" gives explicit timing and intent for use. It stops short of naming an alternative (e.g., compare_tools) or stating when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.