Read a command receipt by command_id to classify executed, failed, not delivered, timed out, or unconfirmed, and decide whether to resend or check device state.
Read a command receipt. executed/failed are device reports, not physical proof; not_delivered is safe to send again as a new action; timed_out/unconfirmed need a state check before acting again.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| command_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable domain behavior beyond that: executed/failed are device reports rather than physical proof, not_delivered can be safely retried, and timed_out/unconfirmed require a state check before further action.
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 front-loaded with the core action and then compactly explains how to interpret the resulting statuses. Every clause earns its place and no words are wasted.
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 receipt tool with no output schema, the description covers the key status interpretations and the safety of follow-up actions. It stops short of explaining where command_id comes from or explicitly routing to a state-check sibling, but it is otherwise complete enough for correct use.
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?
There is one required parameter, command_id, and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. 'Read a command receipt' implies the ID identifies a receipt, but it gives no format, source, or uniqueness details. This is minimally viable for a single obvious identifier but leaves a clear gap.
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 phrase 'Read a command receipt' states a specific verb and resource, and the status handling makes clear it is about retrieving command outcome rather than sending or inspecting device state. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the focus on receipt distinguishes it from gadgets_command and gadgets_get_state.
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 gives clear conditional guidance: not_delivered is safe to resend as a new action, while timed_out/unconfirmed need a state check before acting again. It does not name the state-check tool directly, but the when-to-act guidance is concrete and actionable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.