Read a local copy-and-alert operation checkpoint. Contains IDs, hashes and stages; never stores webhook tokens or alert message bodies.
Read a local copy-and-alert operation checkpoint. Contains IDs, hashes and stages; never stores webhook tokens or alert message bodies.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| idempotency_key | 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, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description still earns credit by disclosing what the record contains (IDs, hashes, stages) and a meaningful privacy guarantee that webhook tokens and alert message bodies are never stored locally — information an agent could not get from annotations.
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?
Two tight clauses with zero filler: the operation is named first, then the record's contents and its privacy boundary. Every phrase carries information.
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, the description does a fair job sketching the returned fields (IDs, hashes, stages), but leaves gaps: the lookup key, how the idempotency_key is obtained, and whether the checkpoint persists across sessions are all unaddressed for a tool whose only input is that key.
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 0% and the single parameter, idempotency_key, is never mentioned in the description. The definition neither explains that the checkpoint is looked up by idempotency key, nor where that key comes from (presumably returned by the copy-and-alert workflow), so the only parameter's semantics are left entirely implicit.
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 ('local copy-and-alert operation checkpoint'), which maps onto the sibling workflow_copy_chart_create_alert without naming it. The word 'checkpoint' is somewhat jargon-y and the tool's relationship to that sibling workflow has to be inferred, but an agent can tell this is a read of workflow state rather than an execution tool.
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?
Nothing says when to call this versus workflow_copy_chart_create_alert, nor when polling is appropriate (e.g., after submitting the copy-and-alert workflow, or on retry). No preconditions, no exclusions, no alternative named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.