get_message_rubricRetrieve the scoring criteria, evidence requirements, rating anchors, weights, and decision rules needed before you judge whether a product-adoption message is worth sending.
Get the evidence requirements, rating anchors, weights, and mandatory decision rules before evaluating a discretionary product-adoption message.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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, and destructiveHint=false, so safety and repeatability are covered. The description adds that this returns rubric content (anchors, weights, rules), which is useful, but adds no further behavioral detail beyond that.
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 that names the action, the resource, and the payload contents with no wasted words.
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 no-param, no-output-schema lookup, the description conveys what the tool returns and its role as a prerequisite to evaluation. It could more explicitly tie itself to the evaluate_message sibling, but it is otherwise complete for its complexity.
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?
Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameters for the description to explain, and it correctly does not invent any.
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 clear verb (Get) and specific resource (the message value rubric), and enumerates what the rubric contains (evidence requirements, rating anchors, weights, decision rules). It doesn't name the sibling evaluate_message, so the distinction from that tool is left implicit.
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 'before evaluating' clearly signals this is a prerequisite lookup step that should precede evaluation, and the sibling evaluate_message is implied as the follow-up action. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the sequencing context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.