Retrieves evidence for a specified report, optionally filtering to items where the asset exactly matches the subject or object.
根拠を返す。asset指定時はsubjectまたはobjectが完全一致する根拠だけに絞る。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| asset | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| report_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| total | Yes | ||
| offset | Yes | ||
| evidence | Yes | ||
| has_more | Yes | ||
| returned | Yes | ||
| report_id | Yes | ||
| asset_filter | 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, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful exact-match filtering semantics for the asset parameter, but it does not explain pagination behavior, result ordering, or how evidence relates to the required report_id.
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 two short sentences with no filler. The core verb and scope come first, and the key filtering condition follows in a compact, readable way.
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?
Given the output schema and readOnly annotation, the description is close to sufficient for a simple read operation, and it includes the important asset-filter behavior. However, it leaves the role of report_id implicit and does not mention pagination defaults, which an agent would need for confident invocation.
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 carries the burden for parameter meaning. It adds meaningful semantics only for asset (exact match on subject/object), while report_id, limit, and offset receive no explanation beyond their schema titles.
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 states that the tool returns evidence and, when an asset is provided, filters to evidence where the subject or object exactly matches. This clearly identifies the core function, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from siblings like get_report_summary.
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 list_reports or get_report_summary. The asset-filter note is parameter behavior rather than tool-selection guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.