Where a request from request stands, by its full id, with our replies in messages.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"id": "<id>"
},
"name": "request_status"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / id / propertiesRemoved value: -nullInput schema / properties / id / propertiesAdded value: +nullDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that returned information includes 'our replies in `messages`,' which is useful behavioral context, but it does not explain permissions, status values, or other return details.
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 a single compact sentence with no wasted text. It is somewhat cryptic because it leads with 'Where ... stands' instead of a direct verb, but it remains appropriately sized for a simple status tool.
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?
For a read-only, one-parameter tool with rich annotations but no output schema, the description gives only a partial picture of what is returned. It mentions replies in `messages`, but does not describe the status fields or the response shape, leaving the agent to infer the return format.
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 carry the burden for the single `id` parameter. It does clarify that the id is the full request id, which is meaningful beyond the bare string schema, but it does not specify format, source, or any other constraints.
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 states that the tool reports where a request created by the sibling `request` tool stands, scoped by the request's full id, and that replies are included in `messages`. It is a bit indirect ('where ... stands' rather than 'get status'), but an agent can still tell this is a status-retrieval tool distinct from `request` and `request_reply`.
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 implies the tool should be used to inspect the state of a request previously made with `request`, and it specifies that the full request id is required. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus `request_reply`, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions.
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.