Skip to main content
Glama

remind_id_check

Email the person a fresh link to an ID check they have not started; the old link stops working. At most once a day.

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": {
      "id_check_id": "<id_check_id>"
    },
    "name": "remind_id_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
id_check_idYesThe ID check's id (uuid), from create_id_check or list_id_checks.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that an external email is sent (consistent with openWorldHint=true), that the previous link is invalidated, and that there is a once-per-day rate limit. Link invalidation and the rate limit are non-obvious side effects an agent must know before calling.

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 tight clauses with no filler: the action and its side effect come first, the rate limit last. Every sentence adds information an agent needs.

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 action with annotations covering the safety profile, the description covers purpose, preconditions, side effect and throttling. Minor gaps remain on what happens if the check is already started (error vs no-op) and what the response contains, though no output schema exists to cover that.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already defines id_check_id and its provenance; the baseline is 3. The description adds a semantic constraint by making clear the referenced check must be one the recipient has not started, which shapes which id is valid.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Names a specific verb (email a fresh link) and a specific resource (an ID check), plus the key precondition that the check has not been started. It is inferable from the sibling list that remind_signer covers signature requests and this covers ID checks, but the description never states that contrast explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

"an ID check they have not started" establishes a clear precondition for when the call is appropriate, and "at most once a day" bounds the frequency. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. remind_signer for signers) or saying what to do when the check is already started.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources