Skip to main content
Glama

Hatch

by com.viberooster
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Poll pairing completion

poll_pairing
Read-onlyIdempotent

Poll for pairing completion (Device-Grant style). Waits up to ~20s for phone approval before returning. Statuses: pending / completed / expired / not_found. On completed, store sessionToken, refreshToken, and grantId — refreshToken renews access for up to 7 days without re-pairing. When sessionToken expires (~1h), call refresh_session. The server also binds tokens to this connector session. Pass hatchId when known. Device claim ≠ forever billing upgrade.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codeYesPairing code from get_pairing_code / whoami.
hatchIdNoOptional hatch id — improves lookup after the phone has approved.
tenantIdNoLegacy alias for `hatchId`.
workspaceIdNoOptional workspace id — for B2B pairing flows.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / hatchId
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional hatch id — improves lookup after the phone has approved.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / tenantId / description
      Previous value: -"Optional tenant id — improves lookup after the phone has approved."New value: +"Legacy alias for `hatchId`."
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / workspaceId
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional workspace id — for B2B pairing flows.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

On top of readOnlyHint/idempotentHint, it discloses blocking wait time, the exact status set, what to store on completion, the 7-day refresh limit, the 1-hour sessionToken lifetime, server-side token binding, and a billing caveat. These are precisely the behavioral details an agent needs and none contradict the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and timing, and almost every sentence carries operational value. The final billing caveat is terse and could confuse agents, but the overall length is appropriate.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description compensates well by listing statuses and token-handling rules. It does not guide the agent on how to react to pending/expired/not_found statuses, such as whether to re-poll, which is a small but real completeness gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already covers all four parameters with 100% description coverage, including code's source and hatchId's lookup benefit. The description's only parameter advice ('Pass hatchId when known') is less informative than the schema, so it adds no real meaning beyond schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The title and first sentence identify a precise verb and resource: 'Poll for pairing completion' in Device-Grant style. The phone-approval framing and token-return details make it easy to distinguish from siblings like get_pairing_code and poll_approval.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives clear workflow context: poll after phone approval, wait up to ~20s, pass hatchId when known, and switch to refresh_session when access expires. It never explicitly names an alternative poll tool or states when not to use this one, so the routing guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Hatch toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources