get_activationRetrieve the current status and SMS details for a virtual phone number activation by ID, including waiting, received code, cancelled, or expired state.
Situacao atual de uma ativacao: status (waiting_sms, sms_received, cancelled, expired), telefone, codigo e texto do SMS quando ja chegou. Consulte a cada 5-10 s; prefira wait_for_sms.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ID da ativacao, de request_number. |
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 full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: the possible status values (waiting_sms, sms_received, cancelled, expired), the fact that code/SMS text only appear once the SMS arrives, and the expected polling cadence. It doesn't address read-only safety, auth requirements, or error behavior, but for a status-read tool the state model is the key behavioral information.
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 dense sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then the enum values, then the polling advice. No filler or restated name/title.
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 and no annotations, so the description must imply the return shape — and it does by naming status, telefone, codigo and SMS text. It is complete enough to call correctly; only the error/not-found behavior is left unspecified.
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?
Only one parameter exists and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents 'id' (including its origin in request_number). The description adds no parameter detail, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.
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+resource ('Situacao atual de uma ativacao') and enumerates exactly what the caller gets back: status values, phone, code and SMS text. It also names the sibling it differs from (wait_for_sms), so an agent can separate it from the other nine activation 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 gives concrete operational guidance ('Consulte a cada 5-10 s') and routes to an alternative ('prefira wait_for_sms'). It stops short of stating the condition under which polling beats waiting, but the preference hint is explicit enough to steer tool choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.