Check the outcome of a write operation on a selected Google account to confirm success before retrying.
Read the status of an explicitly selected account's write. An unknown outcome must never be blindly retried.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| accountId | Yes | ||
| operationId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive, and the description builds on this by warning about unknown outcomes. This adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations, though it does not detail return behavior or failure modes.
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 concise and to the point, with no unnecessary words or repetition. It efficiently communicates the core action and a key safety caveat.
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?
The description covers the basic action and a safety caveat, but it lacks details about what status values are returned, how to interpret the result, and what distinguishes a successful read from an unknown outcome. This leaves some gaps for an agent trying to fully understand the tool's behavior.
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 no parameter descriptions, and the description only indirectly references 'account' and 'write' without explicitly explaining accountId or operationId. Given the two required parameters, the meaning of operationId as the write operation identifier is not clearly conveyed.
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 tool reads the status of a write operation for a specific account, which distinguishes it from operation_cancel and other account-related tools. The phrase 'account's write' is slightly ambiguous but adequately conveys the core purpose.
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 includes a cautionary note about not blindly retrying unknown outcomes, which provides some usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like operation_cancel, leaving some inference required.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.