Retrieve the read-drift, detection, and restore flow for active Financial Compass objectives; filter to one objective by ID.
Read drift → detection → restore flow for active objectives
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| objectiveId | No | Filter to one objective (omit for all active) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.16Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Read' implies a non-mutating operation, but there is no disclosure of auth requirements, whether the flow is computed live or cached, or what stages are returned. Given zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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 line with no filler; the arrow notation compresses the process stages efficiently. Slightly terse to the point of opacity, but no waste.
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?
With one optional parameter and no output schema, the description should explain what the 'flow' returns and in what form. As written, an agent knows neither the response shape nor how this differs from the demo/plan siblings, making it incomplete for a read tool of this apparent complexity.
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?
The single parameter objectiveId has 100% schema description coverage ('Filter to one objective (omit for all active)'), so the schema already does the work. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so baseline 3 applies.
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 verb 'Read' plus the arrow sequence 'drift → detection → restore flow' conveys a multi-stage read operation on objectives, which is more specific than a bare noun. However, 'flow' is ambiguous (workflow definition? live state? staged results?) and it is not differentiated from close siblings like aureon_run_drift_restore_demo or aureon_get_restore_plan, so an agent cannot confidently pick it.
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?
'for active objectives' hints at scope and the schema notes omitting objectiveId covers all active, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. The agent is left to infer whether this is a preview/read versus the demo or restore-plan tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.