Retrieve a stored evidence span and verify it matches the original document to ensure accurate quotes.
Fetch and verify an exact verbatim evidence span against its underlying persisted document.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| run_id | Yes | ||
| span_id | Yes |
| 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 implies a read/lookup operation and mentions verification against a persisted document, but says nothing about permissions, whether verification can fail and how, or rate/scope constraints for a tool whose main output is presumably a verification verdict.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is dense but every word contributes; it could still be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.
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 the description need not explain return values, and the core action is stated. However, with no annotations and zero parameter documentation, the definition leaves the agent guessing about both invocation semantics and the verification behavior.
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 required parameters (run_id, span_id), and the description adds no meaning for either. An agent cannot tell whether span_id is a stable identifier, a character offset, or an opaque token, which matters for correct invocation.
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 specific verb pair ('Fetch and verify') and a specific resource ('evidence span') tied to its underlying persisted document. It is distinguishable from verify_claims and compare_evidence by focusing on a single verbatim span, though it never names those siblings explicitly.
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 verify_claims, compare_evidence, or inspect_document, all of which appear adjacent in the tool list. The closest thing to guidance is the phrase 'against its underlying persisted document,' which hints at the verification use case but states no conditions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.