check_rfq_statusPoll a ticket previously lodged on this MCP (RFQ, terms request, or escalation). Returns current status and, once a human has answered, the answer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ticket_id | Yes | Ticket ID returned at submission, e.g. HITL-20260719-A1B2C3 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description discloses that the tool returns current status and an answer when available, and implies a polling behavior. It does not mention side effects, but the behavior is clear.
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, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words.
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 poll tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers purpose, input expectation, and return value. It does not explain how to obtain the ticket_id from sibling tools, but that is implicit.
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 coverage is 100% and already describes the ticket_id parameter with format. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema.
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 a specific verb ('Poll') and resource ('ticket previously lodged'), and lists the ticket types (RFQ, terms request, escalation), clearly distinguishing from sibling tools that create tickets.
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 implies usage after submitting a ticket via sibling tools, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives.
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.
Four tools split along clear lines: check_rfq_status is the polling function, while the other three are distinct ticket-creation pathways. There is minor potential for confusion between requesting terms and escalating an unresolved matter, but the descriptions differentiate them well enough.
Three of the four names follow an imperative verb_noun pattern: check_rfq_status, request_terms, and submit_rfq. escalate is a single imperative verb, which is a minor deviation, but the overall naming style remains uniform and readable.
Four tools is a well-scoped set for a human-in-the-loop adapter: three entry points for the supported ticket types and one status-checking/polling function. Each tool earns its place and there is no redundancy.
The server covers the full workflow it advertises: create RFQs, terms requests, or escalations, then poll for the human-provided answer. Additional operations such as cancellation or bulk listing are not implied by the stated HITL purpose.