check_statusLook up the status of a Docracy signing chain from a sign or status link — who's signed, who's still pending.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| link | Yes | The docracy.io sign or status link (or just the token) you were emailed. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It implies read-only behavior via 'look up' and discloses the return content (signer status), which is meaningful behavioral context. It does not mention error handling or authentication, but this is acceptable for a simple status lookup.
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 entire description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It earns its place.
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?
The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description covers input, purpose, and output sufficiently for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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 parameter description in the schema already fully covers the 'link' parameter (100% coverage), so the description adds minimal new parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb ('Look up') and identifies the resource ('status of a Docracy signing chain') plus the expected output ('who's signed, who's still pending'). This clearly differentiates the tool's purpose.
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 specifies the required input type ('from a sign or status link'), making it clear when this tool is relevant. Since no sibling tools exist, exclusions are unnecessary, but explicit 'use this when' phrasing is absent.
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.
Only one tool exists, so there is no possibility of confusion between tools. The tool's purpose is clearly singular.
The single tool uses a clear verb_noun pattern (check_status), and with only one tool, consistency is trivially maintained.
A single tool for a service named Docracy is very thin. A signing service would typically require additional tools such as create, send, or cancel.
The server only supports checking the status of a signing chain, lacking essential operations like creating, managing, or canceling signing chains. This is severely incomplete for the domain.