Retrieve previously written output files for selected variants from Capture One's output history and check whether each file still exists on disk.
Files previously written for variants, from Capture One's output history, including whether each file still exists on disk.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| variant_ids | No | ||
| use_current_selection | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context by clarifying that results come from Capture One's output history and include whether each file still exists on disk. However, it does not disclose return ordering, pagination, or failure behavior, so it is adequate but not rich.
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 a single focused sentence with no filler, and the most distinguishing detail—output history plus existence status—is front-loaded. It is appropriately terse, though it sacrifices useful context.
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 no output schema and no parameter guidance, the tool is incomplete for safe invocation. Annotations cover the mutation/safety profile, but the selection-mode ambiguity and lack of return-shape information leave significant 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%, and the description does not explain variant_ids or use_current_selection at all. The boolean switcher's relationship to the variant_ids array is entirely undocumented, forcing the agent to guess how to select variants.
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 identifies a specific resource—previously written output files for variants, sourced from Capture One's output history, with existence-on-disk status. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like co_list_variants or co_get_variant, though it lacks an explicit verb such as 'list' or 'retrieve'.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus related sibling tools, nor any explanation of when to supply variant_ids versus set use_current_selection. The description states what the tool returns but not how an agent should choose between the available selection modes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.