Retrieve an agent's evaluation health summary by ID, including current and previous scores, per-category coverage, and score trends to track performance and identify at-risk areas.
Get one agent's evaluation health rollup: health (score/previous_score), coverage (per-category pass/at-risk/not-run counts), and score trend over time. agent_id is required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the shape of the returned data (score/previous_score, per-category pass/at-risk/not-run counts, trend over time). It is clearly a read-only retrieval, but it omits any note on authorization scope, aggregation window, or freshness.
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?
Two compact sentences, front-loading the resource and the return contents before the parameter note. The trailing 'agent_id is required' sentence is redundant with the schema and slightly dilutes the front-loading.
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 and no annotations, the description usefully compensates by describing the returned fields (health, coverage, trend), which is the main thing an agent needs here. It falls short only on parameter sourcing detail for a single required id.
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% for the single agent_id parameter, and the description only restates that it is required. It adds no meaning about the id format, where to obtain it (e.g., list_agents), or whether it accepts a slug versus a UUID.
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 specific verb (Get) and resource (one agent's evaluation health rollup), and enumerates what the rollup contains (health, coverage, trend). The word 'rollup' implicitly distinguishes it from the detail-oriented siblings get_agent_evaluation/list_agent_evaluations, but no sibling is named.
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?
Only guidance is 'agent_id is required', which is already in the schema. There is no indication of when to use this summary rollup versus get_agent_evaluation, list_agent_evaluations, or get_agent_evaluation, all of which live in the sibling set.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.