nofax

Get Nofax request

nofax_get_request

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check a request's terminal status and safe metadata by its durable ID without waiting for human input. Retrieve non-sensitive details while secret response topics stay protected.

Instructions

Inspect safe metadata and terminal state for one known durable requestId without waiting. Use nofax_wait_for_response when the caller must wait for a human decision, or nofax_list_pending to recover requestIds after interruption. Secret response topics are never returned.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`requestId`	Yes	Durable Nofax request handle to inspect without exposing its secret response topic.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`status`	Yes	The durable request was read successfully.
`request`	Yes	Safe request metadata and terminal state; secret response topics are omitted.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv0.2.7Sep 22, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / requestId / description

Added value: +"Durable Nofax request handle to inspect without exposing its secret response topic."

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "request": {
+      "additionalProperties": false,
+      "description": "Safe request metadata and terminal state; secret response topics are omitted.",
+      "properties": {
+        "createdAt": {
+          "description": "ISO-8601 creation timestamp.",
+          "minLength": 1,
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "decision": {
+          "description": "Terminal human decision when resolved.",
+          "maxLength": 80,
+          "minLength": 1,
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "kind": {
+          "description": "Interaction mode that created the durable request.",
+          "enum": [
+            "approval",
+            "choice",
+            "refinement"
+          ],
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "requestId": {
+          "description": "Durable Nofax request handle.",
+          "maxLength": 84,
+          "minLength": 24,
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "resolvedAt": {
+          "description": "ISO-8601 terminal-response timestamp when resolved.",
+          "minLength": 1,
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "status": {
+          "description": "Current durable request state.",
+          "enum": [
+            "pending",
+            "resolved"
+          ],
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "text": {
+          "description": "Human refinement text when one was supplied.",
+          "maxLength": 2000,
+          "minLength": 1,
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "requestId",
+        "kind",
+        "status",
+        "createdAt"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "status": {
+      "const": "ok",
+      "description": "The durable request was read successfully.",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "status",
+    "request"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedv0.2.1Sep 21, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful extra context: the call does not wait, reports terminal state, and never returns secret response topics.

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?

Three sentences front-load the behavior, then provide sibling routing and a security note. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant wording.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter read tool with annotations, rich schema coverage, and an output schema, the description covers behavior, alternatives, and the one critical restriction (never returning secret topics). Nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single requestId parameter is already well-documented as a durable handle with a hidden secret topic. The description reinforces this but does not add substantially new parameter semantics.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb ('Inspect') and clear object: safe metadata and terminal state for one known durable requestId. It explicitly contrasts with waiting and listing siblings, making the tool's scope unmistakable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Names nofax_wait_for_response for when a caller must wait for a human decision and nofax_list_pending for recovery after interruption. This is explicit routing guidance with no ambiguity.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server