get_itemLook up a goal, task, detour, idea, or standing instruction by ref to retrieve its file and line.
Look up a Goal, Task, Detour, Idea or Standing Instruction by its ref, with its file and line.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | Yes | A ref such as progressor://login/t2 or progressor://roadmap/i1. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint: true annotation already establishes this as a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful return-value context ("with its file and line"), but says nothing about what happens when the ref is unknown or whether lookups are cached/scoped.
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?
One sentence that front-loads the action, enumerates the resource scope, and closes with the return payload. No filler or redundancy.
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?
With no output schema, the description usefully notes that file and line come back, covering the main unknown for a lookup tool. A brief note on missing-ref behavior or scope would make it fully complete, but nothing essential to invoking it is absent.
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 100% and the single ref parameter is documented with concrete example values in the schema itself. The description's "by its ref" adds no format or syntax detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 concrete verb ("Look up") plus the full set of entity types it resolves (Goal, Task, Detour, Idea, Standing Instruction) and the lookup key (ref), so an agent knows exactly what resource is involved. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling get_status, which an agent could plausibly confuse it with.
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 says the tool takes a ref but never states when to prefer it over siblings like get_status or the various mutation tools, nor any preconditions (e.g. the ref must already exist). Usage is only inferable from the parameter shape.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.