check_registrationПроверяет состояние ранее начатой регистрации и подсказывает следующий шаг.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| request_id | Yes | ||
| status_token | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes |
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=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the behavioral detail that it 'подсказывает следующий шаг' (suggests the next step), which is not covered by annotations and enriches the agent's understanding.
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, concise sentence that immediately communicates the core function. It is front-loaded and contains no filler or redundant information.
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 the tool's simplicity (read-only, output schema provided, annotations cover safety), the description adequately covers the main behavior and next-step guidance. The main gap is parameter semantics, but the overall context is sufficiently complete for a status-check tool.
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%, and the description does not explain the meaning or origin of 'request_id' and 'status_token' beyond implying they relate to a previously started registration. This is insufficient compensation for the lack of parameter documentation.
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 states a specific action ('Проверяет состояние' = checks status) on a specific resource ('ранее начатой регистрации' = previously started registration), and mentions it suggests the next step. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling 'begin_registration'.
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?
The phrase 'ранее начатой регистрации' implies this tool is used after starting a registration, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The usage context is implied rather than explicitly guided.
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, but a few pairs (check_registration vs get_account_profile, submit_link vs submit_order) overlap in scope. Descriptions clarify the differences (single vs bulk, status vs full profile), so confusion is limited.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (begin_registration, list_orders, update_link_draft). The only slight deviation is 'bulk_update_order_draft' with the 'bulk' modifier, but it still fits the overall pattern.
14 tools is well within the ideal range for a specialized service covering registration, orders, links, tariffs, and checkout. Each tool serves a distinct function without unnecessary bloat.
The core workflow (register, browse tariffs, manage order drafts, submit links) is well covered. Minor gaps like lack of explicit order creation or deletion are likely handled externally or via the checkout process, so agents can still complete key tasks.