hail

Official

by hail-hq

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Hybrid

List verifications

list_verifications

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve your organization's carrier verifications, newest first, and filter by number or SMS purpose to check submission status and avoid duplicate filings.

Instructions

List the organization's carrier verifications, newest first.

    ``purpose`` is ``number`` or ``sms``; only that kind is listed.
    Omit to see every registration. ``purpose='sms'`` lists the
    registrations to text US numbers from a US number.

    Returns ``{"items": [{"id", "country_code", "number_type",
    "subject_type", "subject_name", "purpose", "state",
    "rejection_reason", "created_at",
    "updated_at", "submitted_at", "approved_at", "confirmation",
    "step", "identity_confirmed"}]}``. ``step`` says where a US texting
    filing in progress is: ``confirm_identity``, ``filing`` or
    ``carrier_review``. ``identity_confirmed`` on a person's newest
    filing, when cancelled or rejected: the next one with the same person
    needs no code. Dismiss a rejected filing first.
    ``state`` is ``awaiting_review``, ``submitting``, ``submitted``,
    ``approved``, ``rejected`` or ``cancelled``. Use it to check whether a
    submission already exists before submitting again. ``confirmation``
    ``code``: call confirm_verification with the code the carrier texted
    the person.

    Errors come back as ``{"error": "<message>"}``.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_verifications"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`purpose`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.29.0Oct 21, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the read-only annotations, the description discloses the return shape, state values, step semantics for in-progress US texting filings, identity_confirmed behavior, and error format. This provides substantial behavioral context for interpreting results and deciding next actions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the core listing behavior and remains focused, but it includes a full return-shape listing that partly duplicates the output schema. The remaining detail is dense and mostly earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has one optional parameter, an output schema, and rich annotations, the description supplies the remaining operational context: filtering semantics, result interpretation, state meanings, workflow guidance, and error behavior. Nothing essential for correct invocation appears missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the purpose parameter has no enum, but the description fully compensates by explaining the accepted values number and sms, what omission means, and the specific meaning of sms. This adds important meaning beyond the input schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: list the organization's carrier verifications, newest first. It is clearly distinguishable from get_verification and submit_verification by the list semantics, though it does not explicitly name those siblings as alternatives.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives clear usage context: use state to check whether a submission already exists before submitting again, and dismiss a rejected filing first. It also points to confirm_verification when a confirmation code is present, but it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name every related alternative.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.