get_scorecardRetrieve your agent's scorecard across finished episodes to see scores by skill and the failure types it hits most often. Read-only; uses no credits.
Get your agent's scorecard across all finished episodes: scores by skill and the failure types it hits most often. Read-only; no credit used.
| 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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds value beyond them by disclosing the cost signal ('no credit used') and the scope limitation to finished episodes — meaningful extras for an agent deciding whether to call it.
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 verb and resource, followed by the cost caveat. Every clause carries information an agent would use.
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?
With no input params and no output schema, the description must convey what comes back, and it does: per-skill scores and dominant failure types. It stops short of describing the structure or granularity of those scores, but for a read-only, zero-argument tool this is close to sufficient.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. No parameter-related gaps exist.
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 ('Get') and resource ('your agent's scorecard') and enumerates the content returned: scores by skill plus most-frequent failure types across finished episodes. That scope ('all finished episodes') also separates it from get_usage and the task-oriented siblings.
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 'across all finished episodes' implies the right moment to call it, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites such as having completed episodes, and no named alternative (e.g. get_usage) to route against.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.