Poll the status of a cloud-bucket discovery scan by scanId. Operator-deploy only; degrades to info when unprovisioned. Returns scan status (running | completed | failed) and progress metadata.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scanId | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the bar is lower. The description adds value by specifying the 'degrades to info when unprovisioned' behavior, which is a useful behavioral trait. This transparency goes beyond what annotations provide.
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 sentences, each serving a clear purpose: stating the tool's action and resource, specifying operational context, and listing return values. No extraneous information.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the essentials: action, resource, unique condition ('Operator-deploy only'), and return format. It could optionally mention potential error states or timeouts, but for a poll tool this is adequate.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining that the parameter 'scanId' is the identifier for the scan whose status to poll. Although it does not give exact format or constraints beyond the schema, the context of polling makes the usage clear. Given only one parameter, this is sufficient.
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 the verb 'Poll' and resource 'status of a cloud-bucket discovery scan', and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'scan_buckets_start' (which starts a scan) and 'scan_buckets_findings' (which retrieves findings). It also specifies the return values: scan status and progress metadata.
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 provides explicit context: 'Operator-deploy only; degrades to info when unprovisioned.' This tells the agent when the tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name an alternative for scenarios where the scan is not yet started, though sibling tools like 'scan_buckets_start' imply this.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, with detailed descriptions that help differentiate overlapping areas (e.g., check_dane vs check_dane_https). However, there are sets of similar tools (brand audit, OSINT, polling) that could cause confusion if descriptions are not carefully read.
The naming is mostly readable but inconsistent: many check_* tools follow a verb_noun pattern, but there are also noun_verb names (scan_domain, cymru_asn), bare verbs (generate), and varied patterns for async operations (discover_brand_domains_start vs discover_brand_domains).
With 80 tools, the server feels overstuffed. It covers multiple domains (DNS, email, brand, OSINT, M365) that could benefit from separation. The high number includes many polling/status tools that add overhead.
The server covers core DNS and email security checks thoroughly, including many edge cases (e.g., BIMI, MTA-STS, subdomain takeover). However, there are gaps like lack of direct DNS record management and some OSINT tools are restricted to operator deployment, leaving agents with dead ends.
