Fetch a scenario's complete definition with its composed flows and parameters, enabling inspection and debugging of test scenarios.
Get a scenario's full definition (the flows it composes and their params).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project | No | Path to the project root (same folder the side panel connects to). Defaults to the EASYSPEC_PROJECT environment variable if omitted. | |
| scenarioId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. The verb 'Get' suggests a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it has no side effects or mention any permissions or prerequisites.
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 efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and scope without extraneous 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?
Given the simplicity of a get operation, the description is largely complete—it clarifies the resource and its content. However, the scenarioId parameter is not elaborated in either the schema or description, and no output format is specified, though that is less critical since no output schema exists.
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 schema describes only one of two parameters (project) and the tool description adds no parameter details. The scenarioId parameter is not semantically explained beyond its name, leaving ambiguity about its format or required context.
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 tool retrieves a scenario's full definition, specifying that it includes the composed flows and their parameters. This precisely distinguishes it from list_scenarios and other scenario-related operations.
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 use when the full scenario definition is needed, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools like list_scenarios or mention any conditions for use. No guidance on when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.