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 mark it read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the polling-frequency restriction, the webhook alternative, and cost/latency expectations, which are not encoded in 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Four compact sections with a clear lead sentence and no filler. Each line carries distinct, useful information, and the most important usage guidance is front-loaded.
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 polling tool, the description covers purpose, usage, exclusions, and rate limiting. The only minor omission is a description of the response/status values, which matters slightly since no output schema is provided.
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 schema only declares operation_id as a required string with no description. The description supplies the semantic context that it identifies an in-flight/pending async operation, telling the agent what the parameter refers to. It does not describe possible status values, but for a one-parameter tool the added meaning is sufficient.
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 opening sentence names the exact action (query current state), the resource (in-flight async operation), and the identifier (operation_id). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like lookup_us_contracts or verify_company_record.
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?
Explicit WHEN TO USE and WHEN NOT TO USE sections tell the agent to poll only when no webhook has arrived, to avoid polling more than once per 10 seconds, and to prefer webhook delivery for real-time updates. This is the strongest possible 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.
The core due-diligence tools are clearly distinct: registry verification, sanctions screening, and contract lookup each have separate purposes and boundaries. The only possible confusion is between get_status and get_outcome, but their descriptions clearly separate state polling from final result retrieval.
Tool names mostly follow a snake_case verb_noun pattern such as get_status, preview_cost, screen_sanctions, and verify_company_record. The main deviation is self_test, and verbs vary across get, lookup, preview, screen, and verify, but there is no casing or style conflict.
Seven tools is within the ideal range for a focused MCP server. However, several tools are generic infrastructure utilities rather than company-verification features, so the set is slightly less scoped than it could be.
The company-verification workflow is reasonably covered: legal existence, sanctions screening, and US federal contracts are all available. However, get_status and get_outcome reference async operations that no exposed tool creates, and preview_cost examples mention operations like send_message that are not present in the server, creating dead ends.