get_list_statusCheck the processing status of a lead list.
Use this to POLL after calling generate_batch. Call every 15-30 seconds until processing_status is 'completed' or 'failed'. When completed, call export_list. When failed, submit a new batch.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| list_id | Yes | List UUID from generate_batch or generate_sequence response. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / descriptionAdded value: +"Generic wrapper for non-object return types."Input schema / properties / list_id / descriptionAdded value: +"List UUID from generate_batch or generate_sequence response."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description discloses polling behavior, the expected check cadence, and the status values that indicate completion or failure. This adds operational context not present in the schema or annotations.
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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by terse, actionable instructions. Each sentence serves a distinct function with no redundancy, fitting within three lines.
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 has a single parameter, an output schema, and thorough annotations. The description covers the operational workflow (poll, terminal states, next actions) comprehensively, so nothing essential is missing.
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 already provides complete coverage (100%) for list_id, describing it as the UUID from generate_batch or generate_sequence response. The description does not add new parameter semantics but indirectly reinforces the source of the ID, so the 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 clearly states 'Check the processing status of a lead list,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like generate_batch, export_list, list_lists, and list_campaigns by focusing on status polling for a generated list.
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?
It provides explicit instructions to use this tool after calling generate_batch, with a polling interval of 15-30 seconds. It also specifies terminal conditions and next actions, making it clear when to use this vs 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.