Skip to main content
Glama

transaction-coordinator

by io.github.GordonHal

check_motion_status

Poll an in-flight motion-drafting task for status. Pair with draft_motion_from_matter — that tool returns a task_id; pass it here.

Returns a status block. When status='SUCCESS', the full drafted
motion is included. When 'FAILURE', the error string is included.

Args:
    task_id:  Task ID returned by draft_motion_from_matter.
    api_key:  Your PrimaCoda MCP API key (starts 'pck_').

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
api_keyYes
task_idYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states what is returned: a status block, and details the outcomes for SUCCESS (full drafted motion included) and FAILURE (error string included). This gives a clear model of the tool's observable behavior, though it does not mention other potential statuses or edge cases.

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?

The description is tightly structured: the first sentence states the purpose, followed by workflow context, return behavior, and an args list. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and it is appropriately front-loaded.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a simple polling tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage context, both parameters, and return semantics including error handling. The presence of an output schema means exhaustive return details are not necessary, and the description fills all critical gaps.

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

Parameters5/5

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

The input schema provides only bare parameter names with no descriptions. The description compensates thoroughly by explaining that task_id comes from draft_motion_from_matter and that api_key is a PrimaCoda MCP key starting with 'pck_', adding significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Poll an in-flight motion-drafting task for status.' It also references the sibling tool draft_motion_from_matter, which distinguishes it from other motion-related tools like list_motions.

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?

The description provides explicit pairing guidance: 'Pair with draft_motion_from_matter — that tool returns a task_id; pass it here.' This clearly indicates when to use the tool in a workflow, though it does not list alternatives or exclusions beyond the pairing.

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

All transaction-coordinator toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes: deadline listing vs. recalculation, motion drafting vs. status polling, and product info vs. fit assessment. However, primacoda_info with topic 'comparison' and is_primacoda_right_for_me could both be used for fit/plan questions, and the mix of legal, real estate, and sales tools may cause occasional misselection.

Naming Consistency4/5

The majority of tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern (e.g., calculate_savings, draft_motion_from_matter, list_my_deadlines). Two exceptions stand out: primacoda_info is a noun phrase without a verb, and is_primacoda_right_for_me is a question-style name, deviating from the established convention.

Tool Count5/5

With 11 tools, the count sits comfortably in the ideal range (3-15). Each tool serves a distinct function, and the number feels appropriate for a server that covers legal drafting, deadline management, contract extraction, and sales/product information.

Completeness3/5

The server covers core workflows: drafting/polling motions, listing/recomputing deadlines, extracting contract data, and handling leads/product info. However, there are notable gaps; despite the 'transaction-coordinator' name, there are no tools to list, create, or update transactions or matters directly, and lead management beyond recording is absent.

Resources