get_reviewRetrieve metadata for a specific markdown review by its opaque ID so agents can inspect review status and details before tracking feedback or applying revisions.
Get one review's metadata.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | the opaque review id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description adds almost no behavioral context beyond the operation name. It does not mention error behavior for an unknown id, access requirements, or whether the response is a full review versus a metadata subset.
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 with no wasted words and is front-loaded with the action and resource. Brevity is not itself a problem here, even though more detail would improve other dimensions.
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 one-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety, the description is minimally adequate. However, without an output schema, it leaves the returned 'metadata' undefined and does not help an agent distinguish this tool from other review-related getters.
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 id parameter is already documented as 'the opaque review id.' The description adds no parameter meaning or format guidance beyond what the schema provides, so the high-coverage 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?
The description states a specific verb and resource: get one review's metadata. This distinguishes it from list_reviews by singular scope, but it does not differentiate it from other get_* tools such as get_feedback, get_status, or get_history, and 'metadata' is somewhat vague.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance beyond the implied retrieval by id. The description does not say when to choose get_review over list_reviews or the other get_* siblings, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.