get_lens_statusCheck a Mindola lens: its share URL, whether it has been claimed, and how much of its knowledge has finished ingesting (ready / pending / failed).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lens_token | Yes | The token from the lens's share URL (the part after /me/). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds useful behavioral context by listing the specific output fields (share URL, claimed status, ingestion breakdown). It does not cover error cases or exact response formatting, but for a simple status check it provides good transparency.
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 sentence that efficiently communicates purpose, output details, and even possible values for ingestion status. There is zero redundancy or filler.
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?
Despite lacking an output schema, the description fully enumerates the key return values (share URL, claimed, ready/pending/failed ingestion). The tool is simple (1 parameter, read-only) and the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it and interpret the result.
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 parameter description already explains 'the part after /me/'. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what is in the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 the specific verb 'Check' with the resource 'a Mindola lens' and enumerates the exact status details returned (share URL, claimed, ingestion progress). It is clearly distinct from sibling tools add_lens_knowledge and create_digital_twin_lens, which are write operations.
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 clearly implies this is the tool to call when you need to inspect a lens's status, contrasting with siblings that add knowledge or create lenses. However, it does not explicitly state when-not-to-use or name an alternative, so it falls short of a 5.
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.
Each tool performs a distinct action: creating a lens, adding knowledge, and checking status. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them, making it easy for an agent to select the correct tool for a given task.
All tool names follow a strict verb_noun pattern (add, create, get) with clear object nouns (lens_knowledge, digital_twin_lens, lens_status). This consistency makes the naming predictable and easy to understand.
With only 3 tools, the set is perfectly scoped for the focused purpose of managing Mindola lens creation and monitoring. The count is not excessive, and each tool serves a necessary function without unnecessary redundancy.
The tools cover the full workflow: create a lens, add knowledge to it, and check its status. There are no obvious missing operations for the stated domain, and the workflow is complete without dead ends.