Poll the status of an async brand-domain discovery started with discover_brand_domains_start. Returns status (queued | running | completed | failed) and progress. Owner-scoped — operationIds owned by other principals surface as notFound.
| 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 declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: the possible status values (queued | running | completed | failed), progress reporting, and owner-scoping behavior where foreign operationIds surface as notFound.
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 three tight sentences with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and then adds only the most relevant behavioral detail (status values, ownership scoping).
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 carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does so at a useful level by naming the status enum and mentioning progress. It could be slightly more complete by noting whether completed operations return a result payload or by pointing to the findings tool, but the essential polling contract is clear.
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%, so both parameters, including operationId and the format enum, are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces that operationId comes from discover_brand_domains_start but adds no syntax or format details beyond 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 a specific verb (poll) and resource (status of an async brand-domain discovery) and explicitly names the sibling tool that starts the operation, making it easy to distinguish from discover_brand_domains_start and discover_brand_domains_findings.
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?
It clearly states the tool is for polling an operation started with discover_brand_domains_start, giving the agent a precise usage context. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to the findings sibling for retrieving results, but the intended workflow is unambiguous.
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.