List evidence rows newest first to review project records, optionally filtered by project, step, or kind for targeted results.
List evidence rows (newest first), optionally filtered by project, step and/or kind.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | No | ||
| step_id | No | Restrict to one step | |
| project_id | No | Restrict to one project |
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context with the 'newest first' ordering, but says nothing about result limits, pagination, or what happens when multiple filters are combined.
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 zero filler: verb, resource, ordering, and filter surface are all in the first clause.
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 an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description supplies what an agent needs to call it: what it returns, in what order, and how to narrow. Missing only edge details like result caps or behavior when no filters are given.
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 67% and the description names all three filters and signals they are optional and combinable ('and/or'), which is a mild addition. However, it does not explain the kind enum values (console_transcript, file_hash, pixel_diff, etc.) or whether project/step scoping is required for meaningful results.
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 and resource ('List evidence rows'), plus the default ordering (newest first) and the available filters. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the write-side sibling add_evidence, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
'optionally filtered by project, step and/or kind' implies the retrieval use case and that all filters are combinable, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or pointer to alternatives such as add_evidence for writing or any detail-oriented get tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.