get_enhanced_report_statusFree. Returns the status of a purchased enhanced report by report_id (paid → generating → done), the plan summary and PDF link once done, the session booking code, and the payment receipt.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| report_id | Yes | The report_id returned by get_enhanced_index_report |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description is not required to restate safety. It adds value beyond annotations by disclosing cost ('Free'), the state transition ('paid → generating → done'), and the specific return fields, which is rich behavioral context not present in structured data.
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 one sentence that front-loads the most important facts ('Free', status progression) and then lists concrete return items. It is efficient and to the point, though slightly dense with multiple clauses, which is acceptable for a tool that returns a complex status object.
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 what the agent will receive, and it does so fully: status, plan summary, PDF link, booking code, receipt. It also clarifies cost and the state machine. Minor missing details like error behavior or polling intervals are not critical for a simple read-only status tool.
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%, and the single parameter report_id is already well documented as 'The report_id returned by get_enhanced_index_report'. The description merely repeats the parameter name in context without adding new semantic detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 ('Returns') and resource ('status of a purchased enhanced report'), and enumerates the exact payload pieces (plan summary, PDF link, booking code, receipt). It clearly differentiates itself from siblings like get_enhanced_index_report (which creates the report) and email_index_report (which sends it) by focusing on status retrieval.
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 usage after purchasing an enhanced report, noting it is 'Free' and taking a report_id that 'get_enhanced_index_report' returns. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to know when to poll this tool without ambiguity.
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.