get_people_cleanup_resultFetch the outcome of a people data cleanup using its cleanup ID. Retrieve processed results from a started cleanup task to complete the operation.
Fetch start_people_cleanup result by cleanup_id. ($0.05; API key required)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cleanup_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | Yes | ||
| cleanup_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.28.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations already establish this is a safe read operation. The description adds meaningful extras beyond the annotations: a $0.05 cost and the API key requirement. It does not contradict the annotations.
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?
The description is a single, tightly written sentence that front-loads the core action, then adds essential operational details (cost and API key). Every element 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?
For a simple single-parameter read tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description covers the key operational details: action, identifier, cost, and auth. It does not explicitly mention whether the cleanup may still be running, but the output schema and straightforward nature of the tool make this a minor gap.
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 schema describes cleanup_id only as a required string with no additional semantics, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description ties cleanup_id to start_people_cleanup, which adds some meaning, but it does not explain where the ID comes from or its expected format. Some compensation for the schema gap exists, but it is minimal.
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 ('Fetch') and a precise resource ('start_people_cleanup result by cleanup_id'). It clearly differentiates this from the sibling start_people_cleanup by indicating it retrieves the outcome of that operation rather than starting a new one.
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 context is clear: after a cleanup has been started, call this with the cleanup_id to retrieve its result. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternative tools, but the relationship to start_people_cleanup gives the agent enough context to select it appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.