Fetch the AI-to-objective-to-portfolio flow for active objectives, optionally filtered by objective ID, to see how goals link to portfolios.
Read AI → objective → portfolio 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 behavioral burden. 'Read' implies a safe non-mutating operation, but nothing is said about auth requirements, what the flow contains, or return shape — thin for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 efficient, though its terseness borders on under-specification rather than pure conciseness.
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 one-param read tool with full schema coverage this is minimally sufficient, but with no output schema and no annotations an agent must infer what a 'portfolio flow' actually returns.
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 coverage is 100% and the single objectiveId parameter is already documented in the schema with the same 'omit for all active' semantics. The description adds no meaning beyond it, so the 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?
States a specific verb (Read) and resource (AI → objective → portfolio flow), scoped to active objectives. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_portfolio or list_objectives by naming the 'flow' artifact, though the arrow notation is jargon-heavy and not fully self-explanatory.
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 phrase 'for active objectives' implies tge usage context and the schema note explains omitting objectiveId returns all active. But there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over aureon_get_portfolio or the other get_*_flow siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.