Retrieve the status of a credential binding job by ID to check the current state of passkey provisioning, such as link sent, completed, expired, or failed.
Retrieve the status of a credential binding job by binding_job_id. Shows the current state of the passkey provisioning process (e.g. link sent, completed, expired, failed).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| binding_job_id | Yes | The binding job id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by enumerating the observable states (link sent, completed, expired, failed). It does not say whether the states are terminal, how quickly they change, or whether polling is expected, which keeps it short of a 5.
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 sentences, zero filler, with the action and lookup key front-loaded before the state enumeration. Every clause earns its place.
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, and the description partially compensates by listing the possible states the job can be in. For a read-only, single-parameter tool with safety already declared by annotations, this is nearly sufficient, though a note on whether terminal states are sticky would make it complete.
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 description coverage is 100% with a single required parameter, so the schema already documents binding_job_id. The description only restates that the lookup is by that id and adds no format, source, or validity detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline 3.
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 and resource ('Retrieve the status of a credential binding job') plus the lookup key, so the agent knows exactly what it does. It is clearly the read counterpart to the sibling create_binding_job, but it never names or contrasts with that sibling explicitly, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.
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?
Usage is only implied: the tool takes a binding_job_id and returns its state, so an agent can infer this is a status-polling call after create_binding_job. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative, leaving the routing to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.