List unverified or failed mapped states and transitions for one UI flow to identify missing or broken test evidence. Use it to spot gaps, not prove full application coverage.
List unverified or failed mapped states/transitions for one flow. Does not claim exhaustive application coverage.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| run | No | ||
| flow | Yes | ||
| project | Yes | ||
| revision | No | ||
| currentRevision | No |
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, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioural caveat — that results are not claimed to be exhaustive coverage — which warns the agent against treating an empty result as proof of full coverage. It says nothing about permissions, result shape, or pagination.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the scope caveat. No filler or restatement of the name. Could be slightly more economical only by folding the caveat into the same sentence.
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 five-parameter read query with no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description is too thin. It does not explain the difference between the required and optional identifiers, nor what the returned gap records look like, so an agent cannot confidently construct a correct call from it alone.
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% across five parameters, so the description must carry the burden and largely does not. 'For one flow' loosely maps to the required flow parameter, but project, run, revision and currentRevision are never explained or distinguished (e.g. revision vs currentRevision). The agent is left guessing what identifiers to supply.
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 (List) and resource (unverified or failed mapped states/transitions) scoped to one flow, which is more precise than the bare name. The caveat 'Does not claim exhaustive application coverage' further bounds the result set. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like get_flow_evidence or compare_flow, so characterisation is clear but not differentiated.
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 statement of when to reach for this tool versus the other flow-related siblings (get_flow, get_flow_evidence, compare_flow). The 'one flow' scoping implies the required inputs but gives no triggers, prerequisites, or exclusions. Usage is left entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.