Inspect executed enrollment steps with outcomes and reasons to diagnose why a specific step didn't trigger.
Every step this enrollment has executed, with the outcome and the reason for it. This is the "why didn't step 3 fire" view. Requires an API key (mk_live_…).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Path parameter `id`. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.20.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description correctly adds that it's read-only. It goes beyond that by describing the output content (steps, outcomes, reasons) and noting the API key requirement (mk_live_…). No contradiction with annotations; the description enriches the behavioral context without repeating the hint.
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 concise: three short sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose, then the use case, then the auth requirement. Every sentence earns its place and the structure is easy to scan.
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 read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, use case, and auth requirement. It describes the content (steps, outcomes, reasons) but doesn't mention pagination, error handling, or response structure—minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.
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 100% (the only parameter id has a minimal description 'Path parameter id.'). The description adds a weak implication that id refers to an enrollment via 'this enrollment,' but it does not clarify the parameter's format, source, or usage. Since coverage is high, the baseline is 3, and the description adds only marginal value beyond the schema.
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 clearly states what the tool does: it lists the steps executed for a given enrollment, including outcomes and reasons. The phrase 'why didn't step 3 fire' provides a concrete use case and differentiates it from sibling tools like list_enrollments (which lists enrollments themselves) and get_enrollment (which retrieves a single enrollment).
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 description gives clear context for when to use the tool—debugging why a step didn't fire—which is useful for an agent deciding between this and related enrollment tools. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it, though the use-case phrasing strongly implies it's for execution debugging.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.