durable-agent-directory

get_submission_status

Receipt status for a submission made to POST /api/lead, by its submission_id (UUID v4). Reports receipt metadata only (received, when, intent, sandbox or real) — never the inquiry contents.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "submission_id": "<submission_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_submission_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`submission_id`	Yes	The UUID v4 used when submitting.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 14, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the burden, and it does meaningful work: it enumerates the returned receipt fields (received, when, intent, sandbox or real) and sets a negative scope ('never the inquiry contents'), which is a real privacy/behavior boundary an agent should know. It stops short of covering auth requirements or what happens for an unknown or expired submission_id, which leaves a genuine gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two compact clauses, front-loaded with the operation and the key, then the scope limit. Every element (endpoint, identifier type, field list, exclusion) carries information; nothing is padding.

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?

For a single-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description does the necessary job by describing what is returned and what is deliberately withheld. The only omission relative to its complexity is failure semantics for an unknown or invalid submission_id.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single parameter is already documented as the UUID v4 used when submitting. The description restates the same format hint without adding validation detail such as case sensitivity or error behavior on a malformed ID, so it meets but does not exceed the baseline.

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 description names a specific verb-like operation (fetch receipt status) against a specific resource (a submission made to POST /api/lead), keyed by an explicitly typed identifier. It also bounds the payload to receipt metadata, so an agent knows exactly what class of data comes back and can tell it apart from the sibling listing/criteria tools.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: the reference to POST /api/lead suggests this is called after a submission and with the returned submission_id. There is no explicit statement of when to use it versus alternatives, no note on polling or retry, and no preconditions such as authentication mentioned.

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

All durable-agent-directory tools Inspect

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

Need Help?