get_operationPoll a route plan optimization started with optimize_plan to check completion, timestamps, and retrieve the result or error.
One operation, to poll a plan optimization started with optimize_plan: done, timestamps, and the result or error once finished.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| operation_id | Yes | Operation ID (operations/<id> or the bare <id>) |
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 openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it is a polling tool and returns done, timestamps, and result/error once finished. It does not mention auth requirements or rate limits, but the key operational behavior is disclosed.
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 compact sentence, front-loaded with the resource (one operation) and its primary use case, with no filler or repetition.
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 exists, so the description usefully describes the return lifecycle (done, timestamps, result/error). With one fully documented required parameter and a clear polling purpose, the definition is nearly complete, though it could explicitly distinguish itself from list_operations.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, and the single operation_id parameter is fully documented in the schema with its pattern and accepted format. The description adds no additional syntax or constraints beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 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?
States a specific verb (get/poll) and resource (one operation), and ties it to a known originating workload (optimize_plan). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list_operations, which returns many operations.
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?
Identifies the polling scenario after optimize_plan, which tells the agent when to call it. It does not explicitly exclude list_operations or state when-not to use this tool, but the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.