Retrieve a validated review from its canonical bucket without altering its decision, enabling safe inspection of recorded review outcomes.
Read a validated REVIEW from its canonical bucket without changing its decision.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| review_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.0.5Input schema / properties / filenameRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Review filename or review ID\n(``REVIEW-YYYYMMDD-NNN-{reviewer}-on-{slug}[.md]``).",
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / properties / review_idAdded value: +{
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "filename"
-]New value: +[
+ "review_id"
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "result": {
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "result"
- ],
- "type": "object",
- "x-fastmcp-wrap-result": true
-}New value: +nullv3.2.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description partially discloses behavior: it is non-mutating ('without changing its decision') and limited to validated reviews. It does not cover permissions, failure behavior for unvalidated or missing IDs, or what the response contains.
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 no filler. The phrasing 'canonical bucket' is slightly obscure, but overall it is efficient and appropriately sized.
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 with no output schema, the description covers the core action and read-only nature. It remains incomplete on how to obtain or format the review_id and what the read returns.
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?
The single parameter, review_id, has 0% schema description coverage and the description says nothing about its format, source, or examples. The parameter name is self-explanatory but the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.
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 ('REVIEW'), and adds qualifying scope ('validated', 'canonical bucket'). It is clearly distinct from write_review and list_reviews, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.
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 phrase 'without changing its decision' implies read-only usage, and 'validated' implies a constraint on which reviews can be read. However, it never states when to choose read_review versus list_reviews or inspect tools, nor any preconditions for obtaining a review_id.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.