Retrieve a specific field value, such as 'Mode' or 'Unit', from an IC-CAP Output object. Use this to access metadata directly instead of inspecting the entire object.
Get a specific field value from an Output (e.g. 'Mode', 'Unit'). Only works on Output objects, NOT Plot objects.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| field_name | Yes | ||
| output_path | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys the key limitation that only Output objects are supported and that it reads a single field, but it does not describe error behavior on invalid paths or non-Output objects, nor the return format.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence conveys the operation, the target resource, examples, and an important exclusion. Every word earns its place and there is no redundant boilerplate.
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 tool is simple with only two parameters, and the description covers the core action and object restriction. However, the meaning of output_path and the expected return value are left implicit, which is a meaningful gap given the lack of schema coverage.
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 compensate. It gives examples of field_name values ('Mode', 'Unit'), but does not explain output_path at all, leaving a required parameter semantically 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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('field value from an Output') with concrete examples ('Mode', 'Unit'). The explicit warning that it does not work on Plot objects helps distinguish it from generic object getters and sibling lookup tools.
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 clearly scopes usage to Output objects and excludes Plot objects, which is a useful when/when-not signal. It does not explicitly name alternative tools like output_get_fields, but the restriction is enough for an agent to choose this tool appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.