Retrieve survey responses and scores for a specific survey instance or aggregated across a survey definition.
Get responses/scores for a survey instance or definition (asmt_assessment_instance_question)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max question rows (default 100) | |
| instance | No | sys_id of a specific assessment instance | |
| metric_type | No | sys_id of the survey definition (aggregate across instances) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.15.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds the table context and mentions both instance and definition scopes, but does not disclose pagination, aggregation behavior, or response format beyond what the schema parameters already state.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the core action and resource immediately, and the parenthetical table name adds precision without redundancy.
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 simple read tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description combined with the schema covers the essentials: what it does and how to scope the query. It lacks explicit mention of result count limits or return format, but those are minor and partly implied by the limit parameter.
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%, so all three parameters are individually documented. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema; it merely rephrases the two selection modes (instance vs. metric_type) that the parameter descriptions already clarify. 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 states the exact verb ('Get') and resource ('responses/scores for a survey instance or definition'), plus the underlying table name for precision. It clearly distinguishes itself from survey creation or sending tools by focusing on retrieving results, and no sibling appears to cover the same read operation.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor when to choose the 'instance' parameter over 'metric_type'. The parameter descriptions imply two usage modes, but the description itself does not explain the decision or mention alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.