hail

Official

by hail-hq

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Hybrid

List verifications

list_verifications

Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists an organization's carrier verifications newest first, optionally filtered by number or SMS purpose, to check status and avoid duplicate submissions.

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"}]}``.
    ``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>"}``.

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

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/openWorldHint/destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that: the full set of possible states, the error envelope shape, and the follow-up workflow (call confirm_verification with the carrier-texted code).

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?

Front-loaded with the core statement, then broken into distinct paragraphs for the filter, the return payload, states, and errors. The lengthy enumeration of return keys is somewhat redundant with the existing output schema but is well organized and not buried.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given 1 optional parameter, an output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers filter semantics, state meanings, error format, and the confirm_verification follow-up. The only gap is pagination behavior for large result sets and how ordering interacts with filtering.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 0% and the sole parameter is an unconstrained string, so the description must compensate — and it does: it names the two legal values ("number" or "sms"), explains that omitting it lists everything, and clarifies what the sms kind means. It does not state that other values are invalid or how mismatches are rejected.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ("List the organization's carrier verifications") plus an ordering guarantee ("newest first"). It also implies its relation to submit_verification ("check whether a submission already exists before submitting again") but never names a sibling tool directly, so it stops short of the top score.

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?

Gives clear usage context: "Use it to check whether a submission already exists before submitting again," which routes the agent relative to submit_verification, and explains the filter's role (omit to see every registration). It does not state explicit when-not conditions or contrast with get_verification and list_numbers.

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