Identify the implementation that backs each pluggable seam, covering state estimation, assessment aggregation, policy, review scheduling, storage, and artifact storage.
Report which implementation backs each pluggable seam (section 35).
Covers state estimation, assessment aggregation, policy, review scheduling, storage and artifact storage.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Report' strongly suggests a read-only inspection, and the enumerated coverage adds useful context. However, it does not disclose whether the report reflects only current configuration, whether any hidden state is consulted, or what the exact output shape is.
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 two short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second efficiently scopes the report's coverage. Every word 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?
For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema reporting tool, the description provides enough context for an agent to know when the tool is relevant and what broad areas it covers. It could include more detail about the report's format or how to interpret discrepancies, but invocation itself is unambiguous.
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)Skip schema coverage is irrelevant because there are no inputs to explain. The description adds value by clarifying the domain of the returned information, listing the six seam categories, so an agent understands what the report contains without needing parameters.
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 ('Report') and resource ('which implementation backs each pluggable seam'), and then lists the covered seam categories. It is clear about what the tool does, though it distinguishes itself from siblings only implicitly through the unique 'pluggable seam' concept rather than naming alternatives.
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 the tool should be used when an agent needs to know which implementation is behind a pluggable seam, especially across the listed areas. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus related diagnostic tools like get_session_info or get_learning_configuration, and gives no exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.