Retrieve a contract's complete details, including invariants, deviations, and verification history, to review its acceptance status and audit past checks.
Return a contract with its invariants, deviations, and verification history.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| contract_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It communicates a read-style retrieval operation and lists what is returned, but it does not mention not-found behavior, authorization, or side effects. This is acceptable for a simple get operation but not fully transparent.
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?
One short sentence states the operation and the key included subresources with no filler. The most important information is front-loaded.
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 one-parameter retrieval tool with an output schema, the description is largely sufficient: it identifies the resource and what the returned detail contains, while the output schema covers the exact return shape. It could add a note contrasting it with list_contracts or get_snapshot, but nothing essential is missing.
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 description never mentions contract_id or explains how the target contract is identified. With 0% schema description coverage, this is a gap, though the parameter name and title are self-explanatory enough to make the invocation possible.
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 ('Return') and resource ('a contract'), and specifies the three relevant aspects: invariants, deviations, and verification history. This clearly distinguishes it from list-style or assignment/run detail tools.
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 description gives clear context: use this tool when you need a single contract and its invariants, deviations, and verification history. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the purpose is specific enough to guide selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.