Skip to main content
Glama

secureIT Sicherheits-Checks

Spoofing-Check: Status abfragen

spoofing_check_status

Fragt ab, ob der Empfänger den angeforderten Spoofing-Test bereits freigegeben hat und wie er ausging. Der Bestätigungslink selbst wird nie herausgegeben.

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": {
      "kennung": "<kennung>"
    },
    "name": "spoofing_check_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kennungYesKennung aus `spoofing_check_anfordern`.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one genuinely useful behavioral fact — "Der Bestätigungslink selbst wird nie herausgegeben" — and implies an async approval flow, but it omits auth requirements, what a still-pending state looks like, and any retry/timing behaviour.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the core behaviour (status of the approved test) front-loaded and the negative guarantee placed second.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain what comes back. "wie er ausging" gestures at the result but never enumerates the possible states (pending/approved/rejected) an agent must branch on, leaving a real gap for a status-polling tool.

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% (kennung is documented as coming from spoofing_check_anfordern), so the baseline is 3. The description corroborates the origin of the identifier ("den angeforderten") but adds no format or validation detail beyond the schema.

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?

Specific verb ("Fragt ab") plus specific resource (Spoofing-Test status: freigegeben ja/nein und Ergebnis). It is clearly distinct from spoofing_check_anfordern because it operates on an already-requested test, though the description never names that sibling explicitly.

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 implied by "den angeforderten Spoofing-Test" (call after a request was made), but there is no explicit when-to-use, no condition for pending vs. finished, and no routing against the near-identical sibling phishing_selbsttest_status.

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