Retrieve a single clearance by ID to check its status, approval URL, expiry, and signed token when approved.
Get one clearance by ID. Returns status, approval_url, expiry, and the signed token when status is approved.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Clearance ID (e.g. clr_a1b2c3d4) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the return payload and a meaningful conditional behavior: the signed token is only exposed when status is approved. It omits error behavior for an unknown or revoked ID, required auth/scope, and whether token retrieval is audited or rate-limited.
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 short sentences, zero filler, with the action front-loaded and the return contract following. Every clause earns its place.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description usefully enumerates the returned fields (status, approval_url, expiry, signed token) and the condition gating the token. A brief note on what happens for a missing/invalid ID would close the remaining gap.
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 100% and the example format (clr_a1b2c3d4) is already documented in the schema, so the description adds nothing beyond it. Baseline 3 applies for a fully documented single parameter.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Get one clearance by ID') and the singular framing distinguishes it from clearances_list. It does not explicitly name siblings, but the scope is unambiguous enough that an agent can select it without opening the schema.
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?
Usage is only implied: the 'by ID' phrasing signals you need a known clearance ID, which implicitly rules out list-style discovery. No alternatives are named (e.g. 'use clearances_list to find an ID') and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.