Read the preparation status of a MEE-shaped intent to verify whether it is only created or simulated, not submitted or settled.
[Capability: preparation_only; tier: syndicate; API: /api/v1/agent/mee; authority: /api/v1/agent/status] Read the preparation status of a MEE-shaped intent. Created or simulated state is not proof of submission or settlement.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v5.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable semantic caution that created or simulated state is not proof of submission or settlement, which prevents over-interpreting the status.
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 compact and front-loads the key capability and caution. The bracketed metadata is dense but useful, and the following sentences clarify purpose and limitations without redundancy.
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?
For a read-only status tool with no output schema, the description explains what status is being read and warns about interpretation. However, it leaves the id parameter format undocumented and does not describe what preparation status fields or states are returned.
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%, so the schema alone only shows an unexplained string id. The description compensates partially by establishing that the id refers to a MEE-shaped intent, but it does not specify the id format or expected identifier source.
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 states a specific verb and resource: reading the preparation status of a MEE-shaped intent. It also distinguishes this from submission or settlement, which helps separate it from create/simulate/submit siblings, though it does not name those alternatives directly.
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 description makes the intended context clear: checking preparation status. It does not explicitly say when to use this instead of get_receipt, get_workflow_status, or submit_mee_intent, so the agent must infer routing from context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.