Retrieve the full results of a completed verification run: per-dimension scores, composite score, tier, class, and VG key when attestation was included.
Get the full results for a completed verification run. Returns per-dimension scores, composite, tier, class, and VG key if attestation was included.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| run_token | Yes | Run token from the verification run |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.15Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses return fields and a conditional behavior (VG key only if attestation was included), but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, what error cases exist, or what happens if the run is not completed.
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 sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and the return contents follow directly. Every word adds useful information.
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 one-parameter, read-style tool with no output schema, the description explains the key result fields and the attestation condition clearly. It is slightly incomplete around error behavior and explicit side-effect guarantees, but the core calling context is adequately covered.
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 coverage is 100% and the only parameter, run_token, is already described as 'Run token from the verification run.' The description adds no new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Get the full results for a completed verification run.' It also enumerates the exact return contents (per-dimension scores, composite, tier, class, VG key), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_standings or get_tasks.
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 phrase 'for a completed verification run' gives a clear precondition and context: this tool is intended after a run has finished. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not scenarios, but the completed-run qualifier provides enough directional guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.