Query the current state of any in-flight async operation by operation_id.
WHEN TO USE: Use to poll the state of a pending_async operation when no webhook callback has arrived or to check progress. WHEN NOT TO USE: Do not poll more frequently than once per 10 seconds — use webhook delivery for real-time updates instead. COST: free - no key required LATENCY: ~50ms
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| operation_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety. The description adds valuable behavioral context: cost ('free - no key required'), latency (~50ms), and a strict polling rate limit (10 seconds). These are not implied by annotations and give the agent critical operational constraints, enhancing transparency well beyond the structured hints.
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 exceptionally well-structured and front-loaded. The core purpose is in the first sentence, followed by clear WHEN TO USE / WHEN NOT TO USE sections, then terse COST and LATENCY lines. Every sentence carries essential information with no wasted words, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 single-parameter read-only poll tool, the description provides all necessary context: what it does, when to use it, constraints on usage, and performance characteristics. The absence of an output schema is mitigated since the description implies it returns the current state. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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?
The only parameter is operation_id, and the schema provides zero description (coverage 0%). The description mentions 'by operation_id' but does not explain what an operation_id is, where to obtain it, or its format. Since the schema is silent, the description should compensate, but it merely restates the parameter name without adding semantic meaning. This is a minimal gap that could confuse agents unfamiliar with the async operation workflow.
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 tool queries the state of in-flight async operations by operation_id. It uses a specific verb ('Query') and resource ('state of any in-flight async operation'), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_outcome (which likely returns final results rather than in-flight status). No ambiguity about what it does.
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 includes explicit 'WHEN TO USE' and 'WHEN NOT TO USE' sections. It directs the agent to use it for polling when no webhook callback has arrived and warns not to poll more than once per 10 seconds, pointing to webhook delivery as the real-time alternative. This is exemplary usage guidance.
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 target distinct resource+action pairs (find_business vs verify_business, check_booking_link vs import_booking_url, get_status vs get_outcome). The main confusable pairs are send_message vs send_transactional_confirmation and verify_business vs verify_company_record, but their descriptions draw clear boundary lines.
The set overwhelmingly follows lower_snake_case verb_noun naming (call_business, check_quota, find_business, send_message, verify_company_record). Minor deviations like self_test and mint_key, plus inconsistent verb choices (lookup_ vs get_ vs find_), prevent a perfect score.
At 23 tools, the server falls into the heavy range and bundles several unrelated domains: SMB booking/messaging, trade and sanctions compliance, company verification, and platform operations. Each tool is individually reasonable, but the set feels like multiple servers merged into one.
Core SMB workflows are well covered: find/verify/import/book, messaging with conversation handling, and compliance preflights. Notable gaps include no consent-record management even though send_message requires consent_record_id for marketing, no update/delete lifecycle for leads or businesses, and no webhook configuration despite webhooks being referenced.