Step 3. Poll a scan by id. While status is queued/running only metadata is returned; when done you get the 0-100 score, grade, per-item rubric points with evidence, the fix list, and what could not be observed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | scan id returned by readiness_request_scan |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that the response varies based on scan status, returning only metadata while queued/running and full results when complete. This adds meaningful context beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations. It also lists specific result contents, including score, grade, rubric points, fix list, and unobservable items.
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?
Two sentences with no extraneous words; the first sentence states the action, the second explains the behavior. Information is front-loaded and each clause adds value.
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 description provides a complete picture of what the agent will receive, including the status-dependent behavior and the exact result components. Since there is no output schema, this is the primary source of return-value information. The single parameter is well-covered by the schema, and annotations cover safety and idempotency.
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 fully documents the single 'id' parameter with a description referencing readiness_request_scan, so the description adds little parameter-level detail. The phrase 'by id' reinforces the parameter's purpose but doesn't go beyond schema. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline score 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 identifies the action as polling a scan by id, with a specific resource and purpose. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on retrieving scan results rather than requesting a scan or fetching a verification token. The verb 'Poll' is precise and the status-dependent return behavior is stated.
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 'Step 3' marker and the explanation of status-dependent responses convey when to use this tool in the workflow. It implies it should be called after readiness_request_scan, and the schema reinforces that the id comes from that tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is clear.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: retrieving a verification token, requesting a scan, and polling scan results. No overlap in functionality.
All tool names follow the same pattern 'readiness_<verb>_<noun>' (get_scan, get_verification_token, request_scan), providing a consistent and predictable naming convention.
The three tools map directly to the necessary steps of the readiness scan workflow (token, request, result), making the set appropriately scoped without excess or deficiency.
The workflow is fully covered: obtaining the verification token, requesting the scan, and retrieving the final result. No missing operations or dead ends.