check_orderCheck an order's current status and retrieve the SMS verification code if it has arrived. Provides a one-shot status check for your phone number order without waiting.
One-shot status check for an order (no waiting). Returns the current status and the code if it has arrived.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| order_id | Yes | The order_id returned by get_number. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark this read-only, and the description adds useful behavioral context: it is one-shot, does not wait, and conditionally returns a code only if the order has arrived. No side effects or wait behavior are hidden; it does not contradict the readOnlyHint.
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 front-load the key operational constraint ('one-shot', 'no waiting') before the return behavior. Every phrase earns its place; there is no filler.
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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essential return semantics — current status and conditional arrival code — and the one-shot nature is explicitly stated. The order_id parameter is already covered by the schema, so nothing required for correct invocation is missing.
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 sole parameter order_id is fully documented in the schema with its provenance ('returned by get_number'), and the description adds no new parameter-level information. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 and resource — 'One-shot status check for an order' — and differentiates itself from waiting-style siblings by adding '(no waiting)'. It also states the exact return payload, so an agent can tell it apart from get_number, wait_for_otp, and the other tools.
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?
It clearly conveys when to use it: for an immediate, one-shot status check, not a blocking wait. However, it never explicitly names wait_for_otp as the alternative or says 'use X instead', leaving the routing slightly implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.