Retrieve a request's status by its ID to check if it is pending, running, or completed. Use this to monitor progress without resubmitting interrupted mutations.
Read one request by ID. Pending/running is not a failure; never automatically resubmit an interrupted mutation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses important non-obvious behavior: pending/running is a valid state, not an error, and automatic resubmission of interrupted mutations is forbidden. This is meaningful beyond the schema, though details like return format or error behavior are not covered.
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 two short sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the critical behavioral warning follows immediately, making every word earn 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 one-parameter read operation, the description covers the essential purpose and the most important edge-case behavior. The lack of an output schema means some return-value detail is missing, but the description is adequate for correct invocation.
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 has a single required 'id' string with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only restates 'by ID' without explaining the ID's format, origin, or semantics, leaving the agent to infer what value to supply.
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 clearly states the operation ('Read one request by ID') with a specific verb and resource, making the core purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get-render or bridge-status, but the 'request' resource is distinct enough for an agent to select it.
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 description gives clear behavioral context: pending/running status should not be treated as failure, and interrupted mutations must never be automatically resubmitted. This effectively guides post-invocation handling, though it does not explicitly compare against alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.