Retrieve a previous URL verification result using its trace_id to access the official source verdict, confidence score, reasoning, and evidence.
Fetch a previous verification result by trace_id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| trace_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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only states it fetches a result, but does not indicate whether this is read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what happens if the trace_id is unknown. The existence of an output schema partially covers return format, but the description adds minimal behavioral context.
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 a single short sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified. It does not waste words, but it also does not earn its place with any extra guidance beyond the name. It is adequate but not informative.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the basic action. However, it lacks any mention of usage context, error conditions, or relationship to sibling tools, making it incomplete for an agent to infer correct invocation in varied scenarios.
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 explain the parameter. It mentions 'by trace_id' which implies the parameter identifies the verification, but offers no detail on format, origin, or constraints beyond the schema's basic string type. This is minimal added value.
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 clear verb ('fetch') and resource ('verification result') plus the key parameter (trace_id). It implies the tool retrieves a previously created verification, which distinguishes it from sibling 'verify_source' that likely creates one, though it does not explicitly name the sibling.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings, no context on prerequisites (e.g., must have a trace_id from a prior verification), and no exclusions. The description leaves the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name and parameter.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.