Returns the complete ReviewMetric JSON report for a completed review run, including all findings, literature, and reference checks.
Return the complete ReviewMetric report as JSON (all findings, literature, reference checks).
Args: run_id: The Run ID of a completed review.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| run_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Return' implies a read-only retrieval and the description identifies the report contents, but it does not state permissions, side effects, error behavior for incomplete runs, or other operational context.
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 front-loaded, short, and has no filler. The argument note is compact and adds a small constraint without bloating the definition.
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 single-parameter getter with an output schema, the description is mostly complete: it states the returned report type, contents, and that the review must be completed. The main remaining gap is that it does not explain how to obtain or validate the run_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%, so the description must compensate. Its 'Args' line adds only the constraint that the run is completed, but it does not explain how to obtain the run_id, its format, or other parameter semantics.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Return the complete ReviewMetric report as JSON', and it names the report contents. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from any sibling tool.
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?
The phrase 'of a completed review' gives a useful usage condition, implying it should be called after completion. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.