Check if an object has a live grant by providing its type and ID. Get the current status, grant details, and recent ledger rows in one response.
Is there a live grant for this object? Returns live | none | consumed | not_yet | expired | unreadable, the grant on file, and the last ledger rows.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | object id, e.g. 2026-09-30 | |
| type | Yes | object type, e.g. report |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the possible status values and the returned components, including an 'unreadable' case, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, permission implications, or other edge conditions beyond the status list.
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 compact and front-loaded: a clear question followed by a concise return-value list. It contains no filler or schema repetition, though the dense status enumeration could be slightly better structured.
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 low-complexity two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it names the returned statuses and the accompanying grant/ledger data. It is not fully complete because it omits sibling routing and behavioral caveats, but an agent can reasonably invoke it from this description.
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 100%, so the schema already documents the two required parameters with examples. The tool description adds only a generic 'this object' reference and no additional parameter semantics, formats, or constraints.
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 identifies the tool's goal: checking whether a live grant exists for an object, and it lists the exact statuses returned. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools grant_discharge or ledger_tail, so it misses the highest-level sibling differentiation.
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 versus grant_discharge or ledger_tail. An agent must infer when checking grant status is appropriate, and there are no exclusions or alternative conditions stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.