tiktok_operation_statusPoll an async TikTok operation started by tiktok_post / tiktok_analytics / tiktok_cancel_scheduled (free). done=true when status is 'posted' / 'done' (carries video_url or the op's result) or 'failed' (payment auto-refunded — see refund_status).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| operation_id | Yes | operation_id returned by the tool that started the operation |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavior: done=true when status is 'posted'/'done' (carrying video_url or result) or 'failed' with payment auto-refunded and refund_status. It lacks details on polling frequency or error handling, but the provided semantics are valuable.
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?
The description is a single, compact sentence that front-loads the action ('Poll') and packs essential status/refund details without fluff. Every clause adds value.
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 simple polling tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains the result semantics (done=true and status meanings). It could mention that polling should be repeated until done, but the 'done=true' flag implies this. Overall complete for the tool's 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?
Schema coverage is 100% with operation_id described as 'returned by the tool that started the operation.' The description adds the specific list of starting tools (tiktok_post, tiktok_analytics, tiktok_cancel_scheduled), giving more precise guidance than the schema alone.
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 clearly states it polls an async TikTok operation and names the specific tools that start such operations (tiktok_post, tiktok_analytics, tiktok_cancel_scheduled). This distinguishes it from siblings like tiktok_connect_status or tiktok_analytics.
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 implies when to use it: after starting an async TikTok operation via the listed tools, to poll for completion. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the scope is clear and the mention of 'free' adds practical context.
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 targets a distinct resource and action, clearly separated by domain prefixes (card_, email_, phone_, tiktok_). The only potential overlap is phone_read_messages vs wait_for_otp, but wait_for_otp is specifically for OTP extraction and is described as a replacement for hand-rolled polling, making the boundary clear. Status pollers are also domain-specific (card_status, tiktok_connect_status, tiktok_operation_status) and not ambiguous.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case convention with domain-first prefixes (e.g., card_buy, email_send, tiktok_post, phone_temp_number). Even less common names like wait_for_otp and i402_plan are descriptive and stylistically consistent. There are no mixed conventions or vague verbs.
33 tools is above the typical 3-15 range, but the server covers a broad multi-domain purpose (cards, compute, domains, email, phone, TikTok, Twitter, orchestration). Each domain has a focused and coherent set, so the count feels justified rather than bloated. It is slightly high, but not excessively so.
Coverage is solid for email, phone, and TikTok, with full lifecycle operations (create, read, extend, delete/cancel where applicable). However, there are notable gaps: compute has only deploy (no list/stop/delete), domains have only check/register (no list/delete), and Twitter has only post (no read/manage). These gaps could force agents to work around missing resource management.