Check what happened to a pattern you requested (from request_pattern's request_id). Returns pending / approved / rejected / in_library so you can see if your suggestion was actioned — the feedback loop isn't a black box. Free, no token.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| request_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "description": "A JSON object (returned as text in result.content[0].text). Diagnosis tools return {matched, family, fix, confidence, source, action_class, auto_safe, gate}; other tools return their own JSON result.",
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context beyond those fields: it lists the possible returned statuses (pending/approved/rejected/in_library) and states the operation is free and needs no token, with no contradiction.
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 compact sentences front-load the action and source, then efficiently list statuses and the no-cost/no-token constraint. Every phrase earns its place with no redundancy.
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 read-only status check with annotations covering safety and an output schema covering return shape, the description supplies the missing essentials: where request_id comes from, possible statuses, and cost. Minor gaps around invalid-id behavior remain but are not critical.
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 single request_id parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It identifies the source of the id (request_pattern's request_id) but does not specify a format, example, or type detail, leaving meaningful gaps.
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?
States a specific verb ('Check what happened') and resource ('a pattern you requested'), and names the originating tool request_pattern, so it is distinguishable from siblings like request_pattern. The scope is clear and 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?
Tells the agent to use it with a request_id from request_pattern's request_id, giving clear context for the trigger. It does not list exclusions or alternatives among sibling status/diagnostic tools, but the when-to-use condition is explicit.
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.