get_python_metric_draftRetrieve an immutable Python metric draft and its fingerprint by draft ID to inspect or reuse stored evaluation metric definitions.
Get an immutable Python metric draft and its fingerprint.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| draft_id | Yes | The immutable Python metric draft ID. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds useful context that the draft is immutable and that a fingerprint is returned, but it does not describe authorization needs, error behavior, or response structure.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the core action and two key attributes, immutable and fingerprint, efficiently.
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-parameter read tool, the description covers the core action and names the returned draft and fingerprint. However, with no output schema, it does not explain the response shape or include error/not-found behavior, leaving some contextual 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 100% and the sole draft_id parameter is fully documented in the schema, including pattern and length constraints. The description mentions the draft concept but adds no parameter-specific syntax or format detail beyond the schema.
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 names a specific verb and resource: "Get" a "Python metric draft." It also adds that the draft is immutable and that its fingerprint is returned, making the operation distinguishable from generic metric retrieval, though it does not explicitly contrast with get_metric or get_python_metric_preview.
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 gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. Usage is only implied by the tool name and the single draft_id parameter.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.