get_call_resultRead a long result in chunks by receipt ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Prior next_page. | |
| offset | No | Character offset; default 0. | |
| api_call_id | Yes | Receipt ID. | |
| wait_seconds | No | Async wait. | |
| max_characters | No | Default 8000. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chunk | No | ||
| api_call_id | No | ||
| total_characters | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / api_call_id / descriptionPrevious value: -"execute call or capability receipt ID."New value: +"Receipt ID."Input schema / properties / max_characters / descriptionPrevious value: -"Characters: default 8000, max 20000."New value: +"Default 8000."Input schema / properties / pageAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Prior next_page.",
+ "minimum": 0,
+ "type": "integer"
+}Input schema / properties / wait_secondsAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Async wait.",
+ "maximum": 45,
+ "minimum": 0,
+ "type": "integer"
+}Output schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -trueOutput schema / properties / api_call_id / descriptionRemoved value: -"Receipt ID."Output schema / properties / chunk / descriptionRemoved value: -"Result text slice."Output schema / properties / total_characters / descriptionRemoved value: -"Full stored result length."Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "properties": {
+ "api_call_id": {
+ "description": "Receipt ID.",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "chunk": {
+ "description": "Result text slice.",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "total_characters": {
+ "description": "Full stored result length.",
+ "type": "integer"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds the key behavior that results are read in chunks, but it does not elaborate on async waiting or pagination continuation semantics beyond what the schema descriptions 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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the core action, scope, and retrieval mode efficiently.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the parameter schema is fully covered. The description states the chunked-read purpose, though it could better connect the receipt ID back to the originating execute workflow; nevertheless, it is largely complete given the rich structured metadata.
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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter syntax or selection guidance beyond mapping receipt ID to api_call_id and implying chunked access via page/offset/max_characters, all of which the schema already documents.
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 a specific verb and resource: reading a call result, scoped to long results retrieved in chunks by receipt ID. It is clear enough to distinguish from list/execute siblings by its 'receipt ID' and 'chunks' focus, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.
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?
Usage is implied: use this when you have a receipt ID and need to read a long result in chunks. However, it does not state when not to use it, nor does it explicitly route the agent to or from execute/list_calls, leaving the workflow context to inference.
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.