check_salesperson_statusFind out whether a website salesperson has finished reading the website and is ready to talk to visitors, and whether its script has been detected on the live site. Give it the salesperson_id returned when the salesperson was created.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| salesperson_id | Yes | The salesperson_id returned by create_website_salesperson. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / salesperson_id / descriptionPrevious value: -"The id returned when the salesperson was created."New value: +"The salesperson_id returned by create_website_salesperson."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description does not add extra behavioral context beyond the purpose; it does not mention side effects, permissions, error cases, or latency. Given the annotations, the bar is lower, but the description provides no additional behavioral insight, so a neutral score is appropriate.
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 two sentences and delivers the key information directly: what it checks and what input to provide. There is no fluff or redundancy, making it 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?
Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is complete enough. It specifies the two conditions being checked and the source of the salesperson_id, fully covering what an agent needs to invoke it correctly.
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 full coverage for the single parameter 'salesperson_id' with format, pattern, and description. The tool description repeats the schema description without adding new semantic details, so it does not exceed the baseline of 3.
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's purpose: checking whether a website salesperson has finished reading the website and is ready to talk, and whether the script is detected. This is a specific verb (find out) and resource (salesperson status), and it distinguishes from sibling tools like create, configure, get installation, get results, and verify installation.
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 use after creation by referencing the salesperson_id returned from create_website_salesperson, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_salesperson_results or verify_salesperson_installation. There is no explicit 'use this when' or 'instead of' guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.