Retrieve the complete trace of the most recent task execution, including agent actions and tool calls.
Return the full agent/tool trace of the last run_task call.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_trace"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It correctly states the tool returns a trace, but lacks disclosure on edge cases (e.g., behavior if no run_task call exists), potential size of output, or any side effects. The description is basic but not misleading.
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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the key information. No superfluous words, every part 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?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential purpose and relation to run_task. However, it could be slightly more complete by clarifying what 'trace' contains or error handling, but the minimal context is adequate.
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?
The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100% (trivially). Per rubric, zero params yields a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed.
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 clearly states the verb 'return', the resource 'full agent/tool trace', and the specific scope 'of the last run_task call'. It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools: run_task executes a task, and get_metrics returns metrics.
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 description implies that this tool should be used after a run_task call, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it provide guidance on prerequisites or error conditions if run_task has not been called.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.