a9n9_research_statusReturn milestone progress and the final result for an opaque tracker code.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| trackerCode | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| error | No | ||
| result | No | ||
| status | Yes | ||
| quoteId | No | ||
| createdAt | No | ||
| statusUrl | No | ||
| trackerCode | Yes | ||
| progressStage | Yes | ||
| progressPercent | Yes | ||
| requestBodyHash | No |
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint as false. The description adds that the tool returns 'milestone progress and the final result', which is consistent but does not reveal additional behavioral traits such as error handling, authentication requirements, or rate limits. It offers marginal value beyond the annotations.
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 a single sentence of 12 words, front-loaded with the key action and result. Every word is necessary; there is no redundancy or filler. It is optimally concise for the information it conveys.
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 tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what is returned but omits context like expected behavior for invalid tracker codes, or the relationship between milestones and final result. The output schema presumably covers the return structure, but the description could still provide more helpful hints.
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. It refers to 'trackerCode' as an 'opaque tracker code' but does not explain where to obtain it, how to interpret the pattern, or what happens if the code is invalid. This adds minimal semantic value; the agent learns little more than the schema already provides.
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 specifies a clear verb ('Return') and resource ('milestone progress and the final result') for an 'opaque tracker code'. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like a9n9_research_start or a9n9_research_submit_payment by focusing on retrieval of status, not creation or payment.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., 'Use after starting a research'), nor does it exclude cases (e.g., 'Not for general search'). The agent must infer context from the tool name alone.
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.
Each tool has a distinct role: quick_search is the free tier, while research_quote, research_start, research_status, and research_submit_payment form a clear paid workflow. No two tools could be plausibly confused.
All tools share the a9n9_ prefix and snake_case convention. Minor inconsistency exists because quick_search breaks the research_* pattern used by the other four tools, but the verb/noun usage is otherwise predictable.
Five tools is well-scoped for a research service: one free entry point and four lifecycle steps (quote, start, payment, status). Each tool serves a necessary and non-redundant function.
The core deep-research workflow is fully covered: free quick search, quote, paid start, payment submission, and status/result retrieval. Minor gaps like cancellation or job listing are absent but not essential to the primary purpose.