RegLayer Instant Decision Briefs

Get Instant Brief status

get_instant_brief_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read private order status. If status is researching, close the call and invoke this tool again after 20 seconds.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`order_id`	Yes	The order_id returned by the paid Instant Brief purchase request.
`access_token`	Yes	The private RegLayer access token returned with the order. Send it only to RegLayer and never expose it to the end user.

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.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior, and the description adds a specific polling behavior (retry after 20 seconds) not present in the annotations. It also reinforces the 'private' nature of the status, which is relevant for token handling. No contradictions found.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then the key retry rule. No fluff, every sentence earns its place.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a simple status-check tool with full parameter schema and an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description covers the essential purpose and a critical behavioral nuance. No significant gaps.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters fully described. The tool description adds no extra parameter meaning; it only implies the access token is needed for private access, which is already in the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the action is to read the private order status, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_instant_brief_result and get_instant_brief_pdf. It also mentions a specific status ('researching'), adding useful context beyond a generic 'get status'.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides a clear retry instruction when status is 'researching' (close the call and invoke after 20 seconds), which guides the agent's polling behavior. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the tool's purpose is obvious from context and sibling names.

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?