get_announcementRetrieve the delivery status of a voice announcement using its deliveryId, returning states like queued, ringing, delivered, no-answer, busy, or refusal codes without exposing phone number or message text.
queued, ringing, delivered, no-answer, busy, or a refusal code - never the phone number or the message text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| deliveryId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes a safe read operation, but the description adds useful privacy behavior: it explicitly says the response will never include the phone number or message text. It also enumerates the possible delivery status values, which is beyond what the annotation provides.
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 very short and contains no filler, but it is a fragment that leads with output values rather than the tool's purpose or usage. It is concise but under-specified in a way that hurts front-loading.
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 read-only tool with one parameter, the description covers return-value privacy and possible statuses, which is useful since there is no output schema. However, it omits an explicit purpose statement, usage guidance, and any explanation of the deliveryId parameter, leaving notable gaps.
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 0%, and the description does not explain the required deliveryId parameter at all. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, but there is no information about where to obtain it, its format, or how it relates to send_announcement.
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 implies a status lookup by listing possible delivery states, but it never states a verb or resource explicitly. The title helps, yet the description alone does not clearly distinguish this from sibling tools like get_call or get_campaign_report.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool, what prerequisites exist, or how it relates to send_announcement, place_call, or get_call. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.