Poll a choice set from present_choices. Returns status draft|chosen and chosenOptionId. Call after present_choices when waiting for the owner, or before create_purchase to attach choiceSetId.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| choice_set_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / sessionIdRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Optional. Agent-link sessionId from begin_agent_link / poll_agent_link. Pass on every tool when connector has no Authorization Bearer (Grok/ChatGPT/Claude). After status=approved this authenticates as als_<sessionId>. Never invent a sessionId. Never ask the owner to open Authorization settings (Grok has none).",
- "type": "string"
-}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral detail beyond annotations by specifying the polling nature, the exact status values (draft|chosen), and the chosenOptionId field. It could mention whether the tool is idempotent or any rate limits, but those are not critical given the read-only annotation.
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 with zero fluff. The primary action and return type are front-loaded, followed by precise usage timing. Every word earns its place.
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 there is no output schema, the description fully specifies the return (status and chosenOptionId) and explains the call flow relative to sibling tools. For a simple poll operation with one parameter, nothing essential is missing for an agent 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 has only one parameter, choice_set_id, with no description coverage. The tool description implies its meaning by referencing 'a choice set from present_choices', but does not explicitly state that it is the ID returned by that call. Since the parameter name is self-explanatory and the context is clear, the description adds some value but does not fully compensate for the 0% schema coverage.
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 names the resource 'choice set from present_choices', clearly distinguishing it from siblings like present_choices and create_purchase. It also states the return payload, making the tool's purpose 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?
Explicitly states when to call: after present_choices when waiting for the owner, or before create_purchase to attach choiceSetId. This provides clear temporal context and ties into the broader workflow, leaving no ambiguity about appropriate usage.
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.