get_sender_checkOne sender check: status (checking, completed, failed, expired, pending_approval, cancelled) and, while kept (7 days), the report.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| check_id | Yes | Check id (sc_...) from check_sender or list_sender_checks. | |
| passport_token | No | Your amp_ token, only if you have no app sign-in and cannot send a header. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "check_id": "sc_exampleexampleexample2"
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / passport_token / descriptionPrevious value: -"Your amp_ token, only if your app has no sign-in and cannot send it as an Authorization header."New value: +"Your amp_ token, only if you have no app sign-in and cannot send a header."Input schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Input schema / properties / passport_token / descriptionPrevious value: -"Your amp_ token, only if your client cannot send it as an Authorization header; leave it out when your MCP app signed in."New value: +"Your amp_ token, only if your app has no sign-in and cannot send it as an Authorization header."Input schema / properties / passport_token / maxLengthAdded value: +200Input schema / properties / passport_token / patternRemoved value: -"^amp_(?:s_)?[A-Za-z0-9_-]{43}$"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description is free to add value elsewhere – and it does, by disclosing the seven-day retention window and the fact that the report is only available while the check is kept. That retention/availability behavior is not visible in annotations or schema. It stops short of saying what happens after expiry or what an unavailable report looks like.
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 filler; the status enumeration and retention clause are dense but earn their place. Slightly elliptical phrasing ('while kept (7 days)') costs it a perfect score.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description must carry the return contract, and it does: status with an enumerated set of values plus report availability and its 7-day lifetime. It could say more about the report's shape or the failed/expired cases, but the essentials are covered.
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 coverage is 100% and the check_id description already points to check_sender or list_sender_checks as sources. The tool description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.
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+resource: fetch one sender check, with its status and report. This contrasts implicitly with list_sender_checks, but no sibling is named explicitly to sharpen the distinction from get_email_check or list_sender_checks.
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 'One sender check' implies this is the single-item lookup versus the list variant, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance. An agent must infer the routing from the name and the schema's mention of list_sender_checks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.