SONAR KYB

check_report_status

Read-only

Poll an async KYB report by run_id and return a compact summary when completed, so you can retrieve due diligence results after submission.

Instructions

Poll the status of an async report submitted via kyb_run_submit.

    Returns a compact summary of the report when status='completed'.
    Reports typically complete in 60-180s. Free (no charge).

    Args:
        run_id: The run_id returned by kyb_run_submit
        agent_type: One of "kyb-diligence", "adverse-media"

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`run_id`	Yes
`agent_type`	No		kyb-diligence

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 24, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/destructive=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavior: no charge, typical 60-180s completion, and that a compact summary is returned only at status='completed'. It omits the set of possible status values, which would be the natural next disclosure for a polling tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with purpose, then timing/cost, then args — efficient and appropriately sized. Minor redundancy in "Free (no charge)" and the Args block restates the schema keys, but nothing is bloated.

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 lightweight read-only poll with an output schema (which relieves it of explaining return shape), the description covers cost, latency, and both parameters. Only the status lifecycle (what values exist, which are terminal) is missing for full completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load and largely does: run_id is identified as coming from kyb_run_submit, and agent_type's accepted values ("kyb-diligence", "adverse-media") are supplied even though the schema has no enum. It doesn't explain what agent_type changes in the response or whether it must match the original submission.

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 (poll) and resource (status of an async report) and ties it directly to the producing tool, kyb_run_submit. An agent can distinguish this from kyb_findings/adverse_media, which retrieve results rather than poll submission state.

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?

Makes the usage context explicit: only for runs submitted via kyb_run_submit, and gives the expected wait window (60-180s) that governs polling. It does not name when to stop polling or point to the sibling result tools once status is completed, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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

This server cannot be deployed