@argosvix/mcp-server

get_eval_criterion

Fetch a single evaluation criterion's details (name, rubric, scale range, creation date) using its ID. Access is limited to your account's custom criteria and global defaults.

Instructions

Fetch one criterion's detail (name / rubric / scaleMin / scaleMax / createdAt) by id. The id comes from list_eval_criteria.criteria[].id. Both global defaults (accountId NULL) and your account's custom criteria are accepted; other accounts' customs return 404 (structural defense).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "criterionId": "<criterionId>"
    },
    "name": "get_eval_criterion"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`criterionId`	Yes	Target criterion id (AUTOINCREMENT integer)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.30.0-alpha.14Jul 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description effectively discloses the tool's behavior: it accepts global and own custom criteria, rejects others with 404, and mentions 'structural defense'. It could further detail response format or auth requirements, but it's sufficient for a simple fetch operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, and the contextual guidance follows efficiently.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: what it returns, where the ID comes from, and the scope of valid IDs. It is complete and self-contained.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with a clear description of criterionId. The tool description adds value by explaining the ID's origin (from list_eval_criteria) and the acceptance rules, which goes beyond the schema's autoincrement note.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'criterion's detail', listing specific fields (name, rubric, scaleMin, scaleMax, createdAt). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_eval_criteria and update_eval_criterion.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly tells where to get the ID ('from list_eval_criteria.criteria[].id') and explains which criteria are accepted (global defaults and own account's customs) and what happens with other accounts' customs (404). This provides clear when-to-use and exclusion guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server