Retrieve the status of an asynchronous operator transaction by ID, confirming whether a prior create, update, or delete operation completed successfully.
Poll the async result of a prior create/update/delete operator call by transaction ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| transactionId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals that this is a polling operation for an asynchronous result, implying a read-only follow-up rather than a mutation. However, it does not disclose expected status values, error behavior, or whether the transaction ID expires.
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 a single sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action ('Poll'), identifies the resource and the key parameter, and stays appropriately compact for such a simple tool.
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 one-parameter status-polling tool, the description is minimally adequate: it states what to poll and how to identify the transaction. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it omits expected return values, possible statuses, and error cases, leaving some ambiguity for an agent needing to interpret results.
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 schema provides only a string property named transactionId with 0% description coverage. The description adds the useful context that this ID comes from a prior create/update/delete operator call, but it does not explain the ID's format, how it is returned, or any validation details.
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 uses a specific verb ('Poll') and names the exact resource ('async result of a prior create/update/delete operator call'), with the lookup key ('transaction ID') included. It is clear and distinct from sibling tools focused on accounts, activations, and operators themselves, though it does not explicitly contrast with those siblings.
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 phrase 'prior create/update/delete operator call' provides clear context for when this tool should be used: after an asynchronous operator mutation. It does not explicitly list exclusion cases or alternatives, but the intended usage is unambiguous enough for an agent to route to it correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.