Fetch the current manifest of an existing ETL job before making changes, ensuring modifications start from the actual configuration rather than memory.
Read the manifests of an existing job. Call this before modifying a job, so you start from its real content instead of rewriting it from memory.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_path | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds only modest behavioral context by implying the tool returns the actual state of the job, but does not disclose error behavior, authentication needs, or other side effects beyond what annotations provide.
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 two sentences with zero filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the usage rationale is woven in efficiently without repetition.
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 one parameter, provided output schema, and strong annotations, the description covers purpose and usage adequately. It omits failure behavior when the job does not exist, but that is minor given the other structured context.
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%, so the description must compensate for the single parameter job_path. It does not explain the expected format, allowed values, or how to obtain a valid path, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name and phrasing 'existing job'. This is a significant gap for a parameter that is required.
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 a specific action ('Read the manifests of an existing job') with a clear verb and resource. It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like hydra_write_job, hydra_run_job, and hydra_list_jobs, especially with the explicit 'before modifying' context.
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 explicitly says 'Call this before modifying a job' and gives the rationale ('start from its real content instead of rewriting it from memory'), providing clear when-to-use guidance. It does not name alternatives or state when NOT to use it, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.