get_smsFetch the current state of one SMS by id.
Fetch the current state of one SMS by id.
Use this after ``send_sms`` to check delivery status.
Example:
get_sms(sms_id="...")
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sms_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.29.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a little context — the value is a "current state" snapshot rather than history — but says nothing about behavior for an unknown id or staleness guarantees.
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?
Front-loaded with the core purpose in one sentence, then the usage note. The example adds little over the schema's required field and is mild waste, but overall the description is tight.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. For a one-parameter read tool the only real remaining gap is how to obtain a valid sms_id.
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 0% and the single parameter has no type detail beyond "string". The description only implies the id is an SMS identifier and shows a placeholder example, without format, prefix, or source of the id.
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: "Fetch the current state of one SMS by id." That clearly separates it from list_sms (many) and send_sms (write), though it never names a sibling explicitly.
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?
"Use this after ``send_sms`` to check delivery status" gives a concrete trigger and names the related tool. It lacks an explicit when-not clause (e.g., use list_sms to enumerate messages), so it stops short of full routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.