RegLayer Instant Decision Briefs

Get Check status

get_check_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read private Check status.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`order_id`	Yes
`access_token`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ok`	No	Whether the private status request succeeded.
`error`	No	A machine-readable error label when the request cannot be completed.
`notice`	No	The notice that must travel with RegLayer research outputs.
`status`	No	The current order state, such as researching, ready, or failed.
`message`	No	A human-readable status, authentication, or not-ready message.
`product`	No	The purchased Instant Brief product code.
`brief_id`	No	The Decision Brief identifier used in the finished artifact.
`order_id`	No	The private RegLayer order identifier.
`reference`	No	The customer-facing brief reference.
`api_version`	No	The version of the RegLayer agent delivery contract.
`delivery_mode`	No	The asynchronous delivery pattern used for this order.
`poll_after_seconds`	No	Seconds to wait before the next status check, or null when no further polling is needed.
`connection_required`	No	Whether the original connection must remain open.
`delivery_instructions`	No	Instructions for retrieving the result without relying on email.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

AddedAug 26, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description's 'Read' is consistent with those annotations and adds a small hint of access control via 'private,' but it does not disclose anything further about response behavior or limitations. No contradiction exists.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is one short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple read tool, though it is terse enough that it omits usage context and sibling differentiation.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple two-parameter read operation with a rich output schema and strong safety annotations, the description is minimally viable. However, the sibling list includes get_check_result and get_instant_brief_status, and the description does not clarify where Check status fits or when to choose it, leaving a completeness gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no real meaning for order_id or access_token. The word 'private' weakly signals access_token's purpose, but order_id semantics are left entirely to the schema's name and pattern, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states the operation ('Read') and the resource ('Check status'), so an agent can tell it is a status-retrieval tool. It is clear but minimal: it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like get_check_result or get_instant_brief_status, relying on the word 'status' to carry that distinction.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_check_result or get_check_pdf. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or a preferred selection context, so an agent must infer usage from the name and schema alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All RegLayer Instant Decision Briefs tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

The paired get_check_* and get_instant_brief_* tools are clearly separated by product prefix, and prepare_* tools have distinct purposes. The only slight overlap is list_reglayer_products, which appears to be the broader catalog containing the Instant Brief products listed by list_instant_brief_products.

Naming Consistency5/5

Every tool follows a predictable verb_noun pattern with get_, list_, and prepare_ prefixes and product-specific suffixes. The Check and Instant Brief groups are symmetrically named, making the API surface easy to navigate.

Tool Count5/5

Ten tools is well-scoped for a dual-product regulatory research server. Each tool covers a distinct step in the workflow: product discovery, request preparation, status polling, result retrieval, and PDF download.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface forms a complete workflow: list products, prepare a purchase request, poll status, then retrieve structured results and authenticated PDFs. No obvious dead ends or missing operations within the stated domain.

Resources

Need Help?