get_signing_statusRetrieves a compact signing status summary for a VeriLock document, providing quick clarity on its current signing progress.
Return a compact signing status summary derived only from the document response.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| documentId | Yes | VeriLock document id or slug |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context with 'derived only from the document response', indicating the status is a computed/local summary rather than an independent external verification.
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?
One sentence, no wasted words, and the core result ('compact signing status summary') plus the key qualifier ('derived only from the document response') are front-loaded. It is appropriately concise for a simple one-parameter 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?
Given the low complexity and strong annotations, the description is mostly adequate. However, there is no output schema and the description does not specify what fields or states the 'signing status summary' includes, leaving some ambiguity about the exact return shape.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter, including the format ('VeriLock document id or slug'). The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the schema carries the burden, which is acceptable at the baseline.
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 ('Return') and identifies a unique resource ('compact signing status summary') with an explicit derivation source ('from the document response'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_document or verify_document_hash, which have different purposes.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of a sibling such as get_document or get_audit_events. The description only states what it returns, leaving the agent to infer when a 'signing status summary' is needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.