Retrieve bounded, redacted tool and provider failures with actionable diagnostics to debug agent errors. Filter by trace ID or limit results for fast root-cause analysis.
Show bounded, redacted tool/provider failures and their actionable diagnostics.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| trace_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add two genuinely useful traits not in any structured field – output is 'bounded' (limited in volume) and 'redacted' (tokens/PII stripped) – which is real context, but it omits whether this is a read-only operation, what auth is needed, and how the bound is enforced.
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 tightly-worded sentence with no filler; the scoping constraint ('bounded, redacted') is front-loaded before the resource. Efficient, though the extreme brevity contributes to the completeness gaps.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required. However, with zero parameter documentation, no usage guidance, and no annotations, the definition leaves an agent underspecified on how to scope or interpret the call despite the tool being relatively simple.
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% for both parameters. The description never mentions 'limit' or 'trace_id', so an agent gets no explanation of what trace_id filters on or how limit interacts with the 'bounded' claim. Only the vague word 'bounded' hints at the limit parameter.
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?
Specific verb (Show) plus a well-defined resource: tool/provider failures and their diagnostics. It reads clearly as a diagnostics tool, though it never distinguishes itself from siblings like security_audit or tool_stats that might also surface problem data.
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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and never names an alternative among the many sibling tools (security_audit, tool_stats, recent_activity). The context of use must be inferred entirely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.