get_screeningRetrieve a stored vessel screening record by ID to review the ten-year audit copy, using your ARCNAUTICAL_API_KEY.
Fetch a stored screening record by id — the audit copy, retained ten years. Needs ARCNAUTICAL_API_KEY.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Screening id returned by screen_vessel or in a batch item |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/openWorld annotations, the description discloses two useful operational facts: this returns the retained audit copy with a ten-year retention window, and it requires ARCNAUTICAL_API_KEY. It does not describe the record's contents, but the added auth and retention context is genuine value.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the action, with no redundant or filler text. The auth requirement is appended briefly without bloating the definition.
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?
For a single-parameter read-only lookup, the description covers what it returns (an audit copy), how long it is retained, and how to authenticate. No output schema exists, so a brief note on the record's shape would help, but nothing needed to invoke the tool correctly is missing.
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 id parameter already documents its uuid format and origin ('Screening id returned by screen_vessel or in a batch item'). The description adds nothing beyond 'by id,' so the baseline of 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 (fetch) and resource (stored screening record) plus a distinguishing scope detail: 'the audit copy, retained ten years.' This separates it from screen_vessel/screen_vessels, which produce new screenings, but the description never names those siblings, so the differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.
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?
Usage is only implied: it fetches 'by id,' which suggests it is used once a screening already exists, and the retention note hints at audit/compliance retrieval. No when-not conditions and no named alternatives are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.