Retrieve SRA/1 progress and determine whether impact closure reached a fixpoint or configured boundary for a given audit ID.
Return SRA/1 progress and whether impact closure reached a fixpoint or configured boundary.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| audit_id | Yes | ||
| frontier_limit | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a safe read by saying 'Return', but never explicitly states it is non-mutating, what permissions are needed, or how audit_id scoping affects the result. For a status tool with zero annotation coverage this is thin, though the output schema does cover the return shape.
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 wasted words; the core action and subject lead. Density of domain terminology slightly reduces readability but there is no filler.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values are covered, but the two undocumented parameters and the absence of any usage/routing guidance leave the definition incomplete for a tool sitting among many *_status siblings.
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 the description mentions neither audit_id (required) nor frontier_limit (with default 16). Nothing in the prose compensates, so an agent learns nothing about either parameter's meaning or the role of frontier_limit.
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 (Return) and resource (SRA/1 progress and impact-closure fixpoint/boundary status), which reads as a read-only status query. The jargon ('SRA/1', 'impact closure', 'configured boundary') is domain-specific and opaque, but the purpose is discernible and distinct from mutation siblings like start_scoped_audit/close_scoped_audit.
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 on when to call this versus alternatives such as audit_context, audit_mutation_allowed, or the other *_status tools. The agent is left to infer that a progress/fixpoint report is what it wants, with no stated preconditions or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.