Poll progress of a private review started with start_private_review.
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": {
"sessionId": "<sessionId>"
},
"name": "get_private_review_progress"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sessionId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must convey behavior. It implies a read operation ('poll'), but does not disclose idempotency, response format, or whether multiple polls are safe. The bare description leaves room for interpretation.
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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the purpose. Every word is necessary; there is no extraneous information.
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?
Given the low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers purpose and usage context. However, it does not explain the nature of progress (e.g., percentage, status) or the response structure, which would be useful for a polling tool.
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 single parameter sessionId is not described in the schema (0% coverage). The description's context ties sessionId to the output of start_private_review, adding meaning beyond the raw schema. However, it does not specify the format or source of sessionId.
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 the tool polls progress of a private review, using the specific verb 'poll' and resource 'progress of a private review'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like start_private_review and get_private_review_result by tying it explicitly to a prior action.
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 indicates this tool should be used after start_private_review, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools like get_private_review_result for completed reviews.
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.