Retrieve an application's current state and refusal count to track progress from prepared through approved, submitted dry run, and closed.
Application states: prepared -> approved -> submitted_dry_run -> closed, plus refusal count.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the state values and refusal count but says nothing about read-only safety, side effects, authorization, rate limits, or whether refusal count is global or per application.
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 short and contains no filler, but it is a sentence fragment with a colon-list structure rather than a front-loaded purpose statement. It is concise but not well-structured as a tool definition.
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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is the primary source of information. It names the state sequence and refusal count, which is minimally useful, but it does not explain the return shape or whether it returns current state, full history, or aggregates.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter semantics because none exist, which is appropriate.
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 lists the application states and refusal count, implying it returns tracker status data, but it never states a clear verb or resource like 'Retrieves the application tracker.' It does not differentiate from siblings such as list_receipts or search_jobs.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no stated exclusions. The description merely lists data fields with no usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.