Fetch the ranked candidate domains (the discovery CheckResult) for an async run started with discover_brand_domains_start. Returns notReady while the discovery is still in-flight; the discovery result once complete. Owner-scoped.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| format | No | Output verbosity. Auto-detected if omitted. | |
| operationId | Yes | Operation ID returned by discover_brand_domains_start. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / formatAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Output verbosity. Auto-detected if omitted.",
+ "enum": [
+ "full",
+ "compact"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent/non-destructive profile, so the description's added value is the disclosure of the notReady in-flight response versus the completed result, plus the owner-scoped access constraint. That is meaningful behavioral context beyond structured fields, though nothing is said about result retention or pagination of the ranked list.
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?
Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no filler. The second sentence is a compact fragment but every clause carries information about return states.
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?
With no output schema, the description takes on the job of characterizing returns and does so by naming both response states (notReady vs. discovery result) and the ownership boundary. It stops short of describing the shape of the ranked domain list or what to do while waiting, which leaves a small gap for a polling-style tool.
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 description coverage is 100%, with operationId explicitly documented as coming from discover_brand_domains_start and format documenting verbosity/enum values. The description merely restates the operationId provenance and never mentions the format parameter, so the schema does the heavy lifting and 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 (Fetch) and resource (ranked candidate domains / discovery CheckResult) and ties it to the async run created by discover_brand_domains_start. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling discover_brand_domains_status, whose name suggests overlapping run-state semantics, so an agent could hesitate between the two.
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 establishes the prerequisite context clearly: this is called after discover_brand_domains_start, with the operationId that tool returns. What it lacks is an explicit routing statement for the alternative (discover_brand_domains_status) and any guidance on polling cadence or when not to call it.
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.