Inspect a saved proposal and its execution evidence, showing operation, hash, and snapshot hashes. Provide plan ID to retrieve.
Inspect a saved proposal and its execution evidence. Default output retains operation, hash and snapshot hashes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| planId | Yes | ||
| verbose | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Input schema / properties / verboseAdded value: +{
+ "default": false,
+ "type": "boolean"
+}v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar for disclosure is lower. The description adds useful context by stating what the default output contains ('operation, hash and snapshot hashes'), which goes beyond annotation data.
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, front-loaded sentence that states the core purpose without filler. It is appropriately concise and scannable.
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 two-parameter tool, the safety profile is well covered by annotations五星. However, the effect of 'verbose' and the full output structure are not explained, and there is no output schema to fill that gap.
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 for missing parameter documentation. It only hints that planId identifies 'a saved proposal' and leaves the 'verbose' parameter completely unexplained, without any format or effect details.
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 uses a clear verb ('Inspect') and names a specific resource ('a saved proposal and its execution evidence'). This distinguishes it from generic lookups like billy_get or billy_status, though no sibling is named explicitly.
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 is given on when to use this tool versus siblings such as billy_get, billy_status, or billy_execute. The agent must infer its role solely from the tool name and short description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.