Inspect the local operation ledger by operation ID to verify whether an iCloud action completed, failed, or needs reconciliation; never automatically resend.
Inspect the local operation ledger. Ambiguous or incomplete operations must be reconciled; never automatically resend.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| operation_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context annotations cannot: the data lives in a local ledger, operations can be in ambiguous/incomplete states, and the agent must reconcile rather than blindly resend. That is meaningful operational guidance beyond the structured hints, though the shape of the returned status is not described.
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?
Two terse sentences with no filler; the action is stated first and the reconciliation warning second. Every clause carries weight, though the warning is phrased as policy rather than as actionable routing 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?
It is a one-parameter read tool with no output schema, so the description doesn't need to enumerate return values. Still, terms like 'ambiguous' and 'incomplete' are undefined and the description gives no hint of what a status result contains or how a caller should behave for each state, which is the main consumer of this 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% for the single operation_id parameter, so the schema contributes nothing about what the id refers to or its format. The description never mentions the parameter at all, leaving the caller to guess that it identifies an entry in the local ledger. With one undocumented param and no compensating text, this falls below the baseline.
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?
"Inspect the local operation ledger" gives a verb and a resource, but 'ledger' is internal jargon and the description never states that it returns the status of one identified operation. The sibling tools (get_events, search_messages, list_calendars) are unrelated domains, so no differentiation is required, but the purpose itself stays abstract.
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 second sentence implies a scenario (operations that are ambiguous or incomplete) and prescribes a behavior (reconcile, do not resend), which is implicit usage guidance. However, it never says when to call this tool versus another, nor what to do with a completed or failed status, so the caller must infer the workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.