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?
The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it discloses a 10-second minimum polling interval, notes the tool is free and requires no key, and states approximate latency. These are operational details an agent needs that annotations do not 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 compact and well-structured, with sections for WHEN TO USE, WHEN NOT TO USE, COST, and LATENCY. Every sentence adds 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 simple one-parameter polling tool, the description is nearly complete: it identifies the operation, gives usage guidance, and provides cost/latency. It does not enumerate the possible state values returned, but the purpose and polling behavior are sufficiently clear without an output schema.
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 input schema has no parameter description, so the description carries the burden of explaining operation_id. It does mention that operation_id identifies the async operation to poll, which is useful, but it does not describe any format, source, or validation constraints. Given only one parameter, this is adequate but not rich.
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 current state of an in-flight async operation by operation_id, using a specific verb and resource. It does not mention sibling alternatives like get_outcome, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation, but the purpose is unambiguous.
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 provides explicit WHEN TO USE and WHEN NOT TO USE guidance, including polling frequency limitations and directing users to webhook delivery for real-time updates. This gives clear context for when to choose this tool over alternatives.
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 have clearly distinct roles: compliance preflight, messaging, transactional sends, directory lookup, conversation/status/outcome retrieval, cost preview, and health check. The main ambiguity is between send_message and send_transactional_confirmation, both of which can handle booking confirmations and transactional message types, though the descriptions do provide guardrails.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern: check_compliance, find_business, get_conversation, get_outcome, get_status, preview_cost, send_message, verify_business. Even longer names like send_transactional_confirmation stay within the same convention. No mixed casing or inconsistent verb styles.
10 tools is well-scoped for a business messaging platform. Each tool covers a distinct aspect: search/verify businesses, check compliance, send messages, preview costs, and inspect async results. The count is neither bloated nor thin for the stated purpose.
The core workflows are covered: find/verify a business, check compliance, send messages, retrieve conversations, and get operation outcomes. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit tool for managing consent records and no webhook configuration tool, but agents can still complete primary messaging tasks without dead ends.