Check if an authorization started with add_account has completed, and optionally wait up to 300 seconds for the result.
Check whether an authorization started with add_account has finished. Optionally wait for it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| state | Yes | state returned by add_account | |
| wait_seconds | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully discloses that the call can block ('optionally wait'), but says nothing about what the operation returns or what the terminal/failed states look like, which matters for a polling tool.
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, zero filler, with the core condition (authorization started via add_account) front-loaded before the optional behavior.
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?
With no output schema, the description should describe the status values returned and what to do on completion or failure; it does neither. It is adequate for a basic polling call but leaves the return contract entirely undocumented.
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 50%: 'state' is documented in the schema ('state returned by add_account') while 'wait_seconds' carries only min/max bounds. The description partially compensates by framing the wait as optional, but gives no units, blocking semantics, or timeout guidance beyond the implied parameter name.
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?
Specific verb ('check') plus resource ('whether an authorization... has finished') with the triggering sibling named explicitly ('started with add_account'). An agent can distinguish this from add_account, complete_authorization, and list_accounts without opening any schema.
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?
Clearly states the context: use it after add_account to poll for completion, and notes the optional wait behavior. It does not address when to prefer this over complete_authorization (the redirect/callback path) or how often to poll, so it falls short of explicit alternatives/exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.