[CREATE] Check the status of a design submission. Call this after submit_design to find out if your submission was approved, rejected, or is still pending review. Returns status, title, and rejection reason if applicable.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| submission_id | Yes | The submissionId returned by submit_design |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns status, title, and rejection reason if applicable, and implies a read-only operation. It does not mention auth requirements or rate limits, but for a status check the behavior is well enough explained.
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 front-loaded with the core purpose. The '[CREATE]' prefix is dispensable and slightly confusing, but the rest is efficient and free of fluff. Loses one point for the irrelevant prefix.
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?
The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), and the description fully covers its context: when to call it, what it returns, and the possible statuses. The return values are explicitly described, which is essential since there is no output schema.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage: the single parameter includes 'The submissionId returned by submit_design.' The description does not need to add additional parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema fully handles it.
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: 'Check the status of a design submission.' It uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('design submission'), and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on design submission status. The '[CREATE]' prefix is odd but the core sentence is unambiguous.
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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this after submit_design to find out if your submission was approved, rejected, or is still pending review.' It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to know when to invoke it.
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 have distinct purposes with clear category tags. Minor potential confusion between get_current_brief vs list_briefs and get_brand vs get_brand_mcp_endpoint, but descriptions clarify intent.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using lowercase with underscores, e.g., check_agent_standing, list_drops, submit_design. No mixing of conventions.
32 tools is on the high side, but the server covers a wide domain including browsing, purchasing, design submission, concierge, and marketing. Each tool serves a specific function, though some consolidation could be possible.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle of browsing, purchasing, design creation, commissions, and concierge services. Minor gaps like refund handling are absent, but the core workflows are well-supported.