check_statusLook up the status of a Docracy signing chain from a sign or status link — who's signed, who's still pending.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| link | Yes | The docracy.io sign or status link (or just the token) you were emailed. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The phrase 'Look up' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, nor does it mention authentication requirements, error behavior, or what happens with invalid links. Since annotations are absent, the description carries the burden and covers the basic read-only nature but lacks deeper behavioral disclosure.
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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the action and the information returned. It contains no fluff or redundant wording, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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?
For a simple status-lookup tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the outcome ('who's signed, who's still pending'). It lacks details on exact response formatting or edge cases, but given the simplicity, it covers the essential context.
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 schema already provides 100% coverage for the 'link' parameter, describing it as a docracy.io sign/status link or token. The description's mention of 'from a sign or status link' aligns with the schema but does not add additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline score of 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 uses the specific verb 'Look up' and identifies the resource as 'status of a Docracy signing chain,' making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It also adds context that it works from a sign or status link, which further clarifies its scope.
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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when you have a sign or status link and need to know who has signed and who is pending. There are no explicit exclusions or alternatives, but the context is clear and self-contained.
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.
The tools are largely distinct: list_templates and get_template cover browsing/fetching templates, draft_from_template starts a drafting workflow, and check_status looks up signing status. There is slight overlap between get_template and draft_from_template since both return prepare URLs and drafting hints, but their core purposes remain separable.
All tool names follow a clear snake_case verb-object pattern: check_status, draft_from_template, get_template, and list_templates. The singular/plural template names are natural, and there are no mixed conventions or vague verbs.
Four tools is a well-scoped size for a template drafting and status assistant. Each tool serves a distinct user need without redundancy or bloat.
The set covers the main template browsing, arbitrary drafting, and status-checking workflow, and explicitly signals when human action is required. The only notable gap is the lack of an API-driven send-for-signature action, but the descriptions deliberately leave that to the human user.