Retrieve semantic signals for a specific run ID, optionally filtered by signal type, to support evidence-based market research.
Find extracted semantic signals filtered by signal type and run ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| run_id | Yes | ||
| signal_type | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state whether this is read-only, how results are paginated or limited, what permissions the run must have, or what happens if the run_id doesn't exist.
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 tight sentence with the resource and filters front-loaded and no filler. It's appropriately sized, though brevity here comes at the cost of completeness.
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 values need not be explained, but with 0% schema coverage and no enum on signal_type, the agent has no way to know valid signal-type values or the limit's default behavior. For a filtered query tool in a dense sibling set, this leaves meaningful gaps.
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%, yet the description only names two of the three parameters (signal_type, run_id) and ignores 'limit' entirely. It also gives no accepted signal_type values or run_id format, leaving the agent without the syntax needed to call it correctly.
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?
States a clear verb (Find) and a specific resource (extracted semantic signals) with scoping filters (signal type, run ID). The resource is distinguishable from sibling find_* tools like find_needs or find_audiences, though the description doesn't explicitly contrast them.
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 guidance on when to use this versus the many sibling find_* tools, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. It implies usage through the filter mention but never states it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.