Retrieve reviews and question/answer text visible to an author for a given conference submission. Use it to check reviewer feedback and track changes.
Reviews (and their question/answer text) visible to the author for a submission.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| refresh | No | ||
| conference | Yes | ||
| submission_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one genuinely valuable trait: results are access-scoped to what the author can see, and the payload includes review Q/A text. However, it says nothing about the 'refresh' parameter's caching/staleness behavior or result ordering, which are exactly the traits an agent needs for this kind of fetch.
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 tight sentence with no filler, and the most important qualifier (author-visible scope) is front-loaded. It sacrifices a little clarity for brevity by omitting the subject/verb framing.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description correctly covers the resource and its visibility scope. But it leaves parameter semantics, refresh semantics, and any usage context unaddressed, which is thin for a tool with zero annotations and zero schema descriptions.
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% across three parameters, so the description would need to compensate and does not. In particular the non-obvious 'refresh' flag (likely cache bypass) is left completely undefined in both schema and description.
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?
Names a specific verb (get) and resource (reviews) and adds useful scope: reviews 'visible to the author for a submission', including question/answer text. It's clearly distinct from siblings like list_submissions or get_submission, though it never explicitly differentiates itself from them.
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 on when to call this versus alternatives such as get_submission or list_submissions, nor any prerequisites. The phrase 'visible to the author' implies a permission context but stops short of stating when this tool is the right choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.