Retrieve computed detector measurements and cross-detector timing for a specified run, including evidence IDs for verification.
Return computed detector measurements and cross-detector timing with evidence IDs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| run_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety and locality are covered. The description adds one piece of value beyond that: results carry evidence IDs, implying provenance-bearing output. It says nothing about behavior on a nonexistent or incomplete run, result size, or whether repeated calls are stable.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler and no redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification given the undocumented parameter.
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?
The description does convey the shape of the return payload (measurements, cross-detector timing, evidence IDs), which partially compensates for the absence of an output schema. However, with a required run_id that is nowhere defined and no guidance on prerequisites, the definition is only minimally adequate for an agent to 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% and run_id is documented nowhere, so the description must carry the burden and does not — it never explains what a run_id identifies, its format, or where the agent obtains one. With one undocumented required parameter, this is a clear gap rather than the zero-parameter baseline of 4.
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?
Uses a specific verb ('Return') with a named payload ('computed detector measurements and cross-detector timing with evidence IDs'), so an agent can tell this is a results-retrieval tool rather than a catalog, guide, or quality-check tool. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with siblings like analyze_detector or list_events.
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 statement of when to call this versus alternatives such as analyze_detector or check_data_quality, nor any precondition such as the run needing to be complete. The agent must infer the usage context entirely from the name and the single run_id parameter.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.