Retrieve all review rounds and reviewer assignments for a submission, showing who reviewed at each stage and the results.
Fetch the review rounds and reviewer assignments for a submission.
Returns review_rounds (this submission's successive rounds)
and review_assignments (who is reviewing, at which stage, with
what result).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| journal | No | ||
| submission | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return structure (review_rounds and review_assignments) and what each contains, which is helpful. However, it does not mention whether this is a read-only operation, any required permissions, or what happens if the submission has no reviews. The description adds some behavioral context but not comprehensive.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and the return structure is clearly listed. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff 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 read-style fetch tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and return fields. However, it lacks guidance on the optional journal parameter, any prerequisites (e.g., submission ID format), and edge cases like missing reviews. It is adequate but not fully complete for an agent to invoke without additional inference.
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 must compensate. It explains the 'submission' parameter implicitly by stating the tool fetches data 'for a submission', but it does not explain the 'journal' parameter at all. The description adds meaning for the primary parameter but leaves the optional journal parameter undocumented, which is a gap given zero schema coverage.
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 the tool fetches review rounds and reviewer assignments for a submission, using specific nouns ('review_rounds', 'review_assignments') and a clear resource ('a submission'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_submission and list_reviewers by focusing on the review workflow.
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 implies usage: call this when you need review rounds or reviewer assignments for a specific submission. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context of sibling tools (e.g., get_submission for general submission data, list_reviewers for reviewer lists) makes the intended use reasonably clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.