Inspect immutable versions of reviews and judgments to trace superseded decisions and their rationale for auditing AI agent reasoning.
Inspect immutable experience and review versions, including superseded judgments and their rationale.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It does disclose a meaningful trait—that results include superseded judgments and their rationale—which tells the agent this returns history rather than current state. It says nothing about pagination, ordering, or authorization, and only implies read-only behavior via the word 'Inspect'.
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 dense sentence with the core scope ('immutable experience and review versions') front-loaded and the clarifying detail trailing. No filler or repetition.
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For a one-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description covers the nature of the returned data (historical, superseded, with rationale) but leaves the identifier's meaning and the result shape unstated. Adequate but not fully self-sufficient.
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%, so the description must compensate for the single 'id' parameter, and it does not. It never states whether 'id' is an experience id, a review id, or something else, despite the sibling set containing both experience and review concepts.
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 ('Inspect') and resource ('experience and review versions') and clarifies the scope as historical, including superseded judgments. However, it does not differentiate itself from siblings like get_experience or pending_experiences, so an agent must infer the distinction from the wording alone.
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?
No when-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The presence of get_experience, pending_experiences, and review_experience in the sibling list makes the absence of routing advice a real gap—the agent is left to guess which tool returns current vs historical state.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
This server cannot be deployed