Reads retained native SFTP upload progress, errors, and completion status by transfer ID, verifying completion beyond 100% progress or a missing queue row.
Read retained native upload progress/error/completion by transfer ID. 100% progress or a disappeared queue row alone does not mean completed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| transfer_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish read-only, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond that by clarifying that status data is retained and that apparent completion signals can be misleading.
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-loaded with the core operation and followed by the most important interpretation caveat. There is no wasted wording.
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 simple one-parameter read-only status tool, the description covers the core purpose and the key pitfall about interpreting progress. It leaves minor gaps around transfer ID provenance and exact return fields, but remains largely sufficient.
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 single parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the explanatory burden. It says only 'by transfer ID,' which adds little beyond the schema property name and does not explain where the transfer ID comes from or what format it takes.
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 and resource: reading retained native upload progress, errors, or completion by transfer ID. It is clearly distinct from sftp_upload and list_sftp_sessions, though it does not explicitly name 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 intended use is implied: check upload status using a transfer ID. The caveat that 100% progress or a disappeared queue row does not mean completion is useful guidance, but the description never explicitly says when to call this versus other SFTP lifecycle tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.