Read the private execution status and completion evidence. Put the token in this tool argument, never a URL. Poll only while the status is received or accepted.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| request_id | Yes | ||
| request_token | Yes |
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the execution status is private, gives a security-critical instruction about token placement, and defines a polling termination condition. This adds meaningful behavioral context, though error handling and return details are not covered.
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 long, front-loaded with the core purpose and then providing essential usage instructions. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.
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 polling read tool, the description covers key usage aspects including privacy, token handling, and when to stop polling. However, without an output schema, it does not explain what the response will contain beyond 'completion evidence', leaving some ambiguity for an agent.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It only explains the token parameter ('put the token in this tool argument') and leaves request_id's meaning implicit. This is insufficient for an agent to understand how to obtain or use the request_id.
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 tool as reading private execution status and completion evidence, using a specific verb ('read') and resource. It distinguishes this from sibling getters like get_blocker_resolution and get_opportunity by focusing on execution outcomes.
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?
Provides clear usage context by instructing the agent to pass the token as an argument, never in a URL, and to poll only while the status is 'received or accepted'. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the complementary relationship with request_outcome_execution is implied.
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.
Most tools are separated by lifecycle stage, and the descriptions are detailed, but resolve_blocker and request_outcome_execution both accept work the agent cannot complete, making their boundary subtle. get_blocker_resolution and get_outcome_execution are also both private status readers, so some overlap exists even though descriptions help.
The set is mostly consistent with snake_case verb_noun names like search_work, select_blocker_offer, and report_blocker_outcome. buyer_capabilities is a bare noun phrase rather than a verb_noun, and submission verbs vary between resolve and request, but overall the naming remains predictable.
Ten tools is well within the well-scoped range for a workflow server. Each tool supports the blocker lifecycle, execution status, or work/service discovery, and none feels gratuitous.
The core workflow is fully represented: resolve a blocker, discover routes, select an offer, execute, read evidence, and report outcomes. There is no explicit cancel or request-history tool, and some search/discovery tools are not tied to a follow-up action, but these are minor gaps rather than dead ends.