Retrieve a single authorized episode by ID, including ordered events and candidate provenance, to support inspection and auditing.
Get one authorized episode with ordered event and candidate provenance.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| clearance | No | restricted | |
| tenant_id | No | local | |
| episode_id | Yes | ||
| groups_json | No | [] | |
| principal_id | No | local-user | |
| projects_json | No | [] |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does add some context by mentioning 'authorized' and by describing the return composition as ordered event and candidate provenance. However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, authorization failure behavior, rate limits, or what happens when the episode is not found.
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 tightly written sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core operation and includes the most important distinguishing detail about provenance, earning its place.
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 tool with six parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, this description is far too thin. It fails to explain required versus optional parameters, default semantics, authorization expectations, or return structure beyond a brief phrase, so an agent cannot reliably invoke it correctly.
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, but it mentions no parameter details at all. It does not explain episode_id, clearance, tenant_id, groups_json, principal_id, or projects_json, leaving the agent without meaningful guidance for populating the six parameters.
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 identifies a singular fetch operation ('Get one') on a specific resource ('authorized episode') and adds a distinctive outcome ('ordered event and candidate provenance'). This differentiates it from siblings like company_episodes_search, which implies searching rather than retrieving a single episode.
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 provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as company_episodes_search or company_memory_get. The word 'one' implies a singular retrieval, but there is no explicit condition, prerequisite, or exclusion to help an agent choose this tool confidently.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.