Check the status of a data request created with request_data by providing its request ID, so you can track whether it is pending, approved, or completed.
Check the status of a request created with request_data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| request_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and "check" only weakly implies a read-only, non-destructive operation. It does not disclose what status values exist, whether the status is terminal or should be polled, how long it may take, or what error occurs for an unknown/stale request_id — all material for a status-check tool with no output schema.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; every clause (the action, the target resource, and its origin) earns 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 status tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides a workable minimum but leaves the agent guessing about status semantics, polling expectations, and failure modes. It is adequate to identify the tool but not to use it confidently in all cases.
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?
With only one parameter at 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it does partially by indicating the request_id originates from request_data. It adds no format, expected structure, or validation detail beyond that origin hint, leaving the parameter only half explained.
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 states a specific verb and resource ("check the status of a request") and ties it to the sibling request_data that creates the request, so the agent can distinguish it from other siblings. It stops short of a full 5 because it doesn't define what 'status' means, but the purpose is unambiguous.
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 phrase "created with request_data" implies the prerequisite (a request must exist first) and positions this as the follow-up to request_data, which is useful. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use it versus alternatives or when not to (e.g., no polling vs one-shot guidance).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.