Check an uncertain write's durable receipt without repeating its effect. A pending/unknown result is not proof of failure; inspect the target and do not use a new operation ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| operation_id | Yes | The operation_id of the earlier write whose receipt you want to check. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / operation_id / descriptionAdded value: +"The operation_id of the earlier write whose receipt you want to check."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description goes beyond them by clarifying that a pending/unknown result is not proof of failure and that the caller must not mint a new operation ID — non-obvious semantic guidance. It stops short of describing what the receipt actually contains.
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 tight sentences with zero filler; the core purpose is front-loaded and the corrective guidance ('do not use a new operation ID') follows immediately. Every clause 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?
There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing what a 'durable receipt' returns (e.g. status values, terminality). It gestures at pending/unknown semantics but never explains the return shape, leaving an agent unsure what a resolved check looks like.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema documents operation_id, its UUID format, and the constraint that it must reference an earlier write. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 states a specific action directed at a specific resource: checking the durable receipt of an uncertain write. It distinguishes itself from siblings like cairn_local_status by framing the object as an in-flight write's receipt rather than general local state. The phrasing 'durable receipt' is slightly abstract but still actionable.
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 gives a clear condition for use ('an uncertain write') and explicit invocation guidance ('inspect the target and do not use a new operation ID'). It does not name alternative tools, but the when-to-use context is unambiguous enough that an agent won't confuse it with the other cairn_* tools.
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.