Check whether MYOPL confirmed completion of your prepared RSVP.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action_id | Yes | Action identifier returned by prepare_my_rsvp on this same account connection. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / descriptionAdded value: +"Arguments for get_my_action_status."Input schema / properties / action_id / descriptionAdded value: +"Action identifier returned by prepare_my_rsvp on this same account connection."Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
+ "description": "MYOPL structured response for get_my_action_status.",
+ "oneOf": [
+ {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "guidance": {
+ "description": "Instructions for interpreting the action state.",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "status": {
+ "description": "Only completed confirms that MYOPL synchronized the RSVP; unavailable means no accessible unexpired action.",
+ "enum": [
+ "pending",
+ "processing",
+ "completed",
+ "failed",
+ "unavailable"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "status"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "error": {
+ "description": "Tool execution or argument error; the enclosing result has isError set to true.",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "error"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the full safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds useful context that the check concerns a third party's (MYOPL's) confirmation of an action, but says nothing about latency, polling behavior, or what a pending/failed confirmation looks like.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the object of the check is stated immediately after the verb. Nothing here is wasted.
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?
With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the 100%-covered single parameter needs no elaboration. What remains thin is the operational context (that this is a follow-up poll to prepare_my_rsvp), but for a one-parameter status check the definition is close to sufficient.
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 100% and the single action_id parameter is documented in the schema as 'returned by prepare_my_rsvp on this same account connection', so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds no further parameter detail, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 pairs a specific verb ('Check') with a specific resource ('confirmation of your prepared RSVP'), and the possessive 'your prepared RSVP' ties it implicitly to the prepare_my_rsvp sibling, distinguishing it from the other get_my_* read tools. It is clear, though it never names the sibling tool outright and relies on domain jargon ('MYOPL') the agent may not know.
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?
Usage is only implied: the phrase 'your prepared RSVP' suggests this is called after prepare_my_rsvp to poll for confirmation, but the description never states when to call it, that it follows a prepare step, or whether it should be re-polled until a terminal state. No explicit exclusions or alternatives are given.
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.