Fetch debate state and optional transcript by thread ID. Include turn history depth and metadata for structured analysis.
State+optional transcript. include_transcript→adds turn history. context_turns:limit depth.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| thread_id | Yes | ||
| context_turns | No | ||
| include_metadata | No | ||
| include_transcript | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds useful behavior details, such as include_transcript adding turn history and context_turns limiting depth, but it never explicitly states that this is a read-only operation or mentions permissions, errors, or side effects.
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 extremely short, with no filler, and front-loads the core return shape first. The arrow-based shorthand is compact but slightly cryptic, which prevents a perfect score.
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?
Despite having an output schema, the description is incomplete given four parameters, no annotations, and a large sibling set. It omits include_metadata semantics and provides no usage differentiation, leaving the agent to infer important context.
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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for context_turns and include_transcript, but it does not explain include_metadata or the thread_id relationship, though thread_id is fairly self-evident from the name.
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 communicates that the tool returns debate state and optionally a transcript, and the name get_debate identifies the resource. It is clear on the basic purpose, but it does not differentiate itself from siblings like search_decisions or extract_decision_record.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_decisions or resume_debate. The parameter notes describe effects, not selection criteria or when-not-to-use conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.