evaluation_getRetrieve an evaluation's persistent status, benchmark scores, and artifacts by ID to monitor training outcomes and verify model performance.
Inspect an evaluation's persistent status, benchmark scores and artifacts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| evaluation_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds the useful behavioral fact that the status returned is persistent and that artifacts are included, which goes somewhat beyond the annotation. It does not state whether results are cached, how long they persist, or whether the evaluation must have completed.
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 tightly-packed sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and enumerates the returned artifacts with no filler.
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?
Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The description covers purpose and scope adequately for a read-only retrieval tool. Missing only usage context and any pointer to the evalu-ation_failures sibling for error detail.
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?
Only one parameter, evaluation_id, with 0% schema description coverage and no description detail. An agent must assume evaluation_id is the identifier returned by an evaluate call. Baseline 3 applies for a single-param tool, but the lack of any format or source hint is a minor 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 (inspect) and resource (an evaluation), and lists the concrete things retrieved: persistent status, benchmark scores, artifacts. It is clear what the tool returns. It does not name or distinguish itself from sibling retrieval tools like evaluation_failures, though the scope is distinct enough to infer.
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, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., an evaluation must exist), and no routing to alternatives such as evaluation_failures for error details. The agent must infer usage entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.