Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
DeskCalc Verify

DeskCalc Verify

Official
by DeskCalc
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Get the confirmed result from DeskCalc

get_verification
Read-onlyIdempotent

Wait for and return the confirmed result of a pending verification, including totals, lines, and corrections, once the user approves in DeskCalc.

Instructions

Wait for and return the result of a verification that came back "pending". Returns "confirmed" with total, lines and corrections once the user pressed Confirm in DeskCalc.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "review_id": "<review_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_verification"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
review_idYesreview_id from verify_numbers.
wait_secondsNoHow long to wait for the user before returning "pending" (default 45 s).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: this call blocks waiting for a human to press Confirm in DeskCalc, and can itself return 'pending'. With no output schema, the description also carries the return contract ('confirmed' plus total, lines, corrections), which is the right thing to spend words on. It does not say what is returned on an invalid/expired review_id, so it is strong but not complete.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the precondition ('came back pending') front-loaded ahead of the return description. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a two-parameter blocking read with no output schema, it covers the important ground: why the call exists, that it waits on a human, the pending fallback and the shape of the confirmed result. The main residual gap is error/expiry handling for review_id, which the description leaves entirely unspecified.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are self-documenting, including the default and 120s cap on wait_seconds and the provenance of review_id. The description adds only the general notion of waiting, which the schema's wait_seconds description already conveys, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('wait for and return the result of a verification') and pins the scope to the 'pending' case, which cleanly separates it from verify_numbers (the producer of the pending state) and compare_verifications. It also names the concrete outcome ('confirmed' with total, lines and corrections), so an agent knows exactly what it gets back.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The phrase 'a verification that came back "pending"' tells the agent the precondition for calling it, and the dependency on the review_id from verify_numbers is stated in the schema. It stops short of explicit exclusions (e.g., what to do if the id is unknown, or when to poll again vs. give up on the pending result), so it is clear context without full routing guidance.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools