Get a check
lob_get_checkRead-only
Retrieve a single check by id, including amount, status, and check number. Lob API: GET /v1/checks/{id}.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Check id (chk_…). |
lob
by io.usefulapi
TDQS
A4/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so description's 'Retrieve' is consistent. Adds return field info but no additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations cover.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, no wasted words. Efficiently communicates purpose and returns.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a simple retrieval tool with one parameter. Mentions key return fields but could specify more about output format or error cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's 'Check id (chk_…)'. Baseline score applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'Retrieve a single check by id', specifying the resource and action. Mentions return fields (amount, status, check number), and distinguishes from siblings like lob_list_checks which are for listing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies when to use: when needing details of a single check. No explicit exclusions or alternatives, but context from siblings (list, other resources) makes it clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Every tool targets a distinct resource and action, with clear verb-noun names like create_address and verify_us_address. There is no overlapping functionality, and even similar operations (e.g., list for different resources) are distinct.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools share the 'lob_' prefix and follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_postcard, list_letters, verify_intl_address). Multi-word nouns use underscores, maintaining uniformity throughout.
Tool Count5/5
With 18 tools, the set covers the primary mail fulfillment operations—address management, postcards, letters, checks, self-mailers, and address verification—without feeling bloated or sparse. The count is well-suited to the domain.
Completeness2/5
The tool set has notable gaps: no create_check or create_self_mailer, no cancel for letters or checks despite being referenced, no update/delete for addresses, and only list for templates. These missing operations will likely cause agent failures in common workflows.