Poll a provider mailbox for work orders filtered by status, capability, network, or age, covering open, accepted, running, completed, failed, and cancelled jobs.
Poll this node's provider mailbox for open, accepted, running, completed, failed, or cancelled work orders.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No | ||
| capability | No | ||
| network_id | No | ||
| max_age_hours | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavioral traits. It says the tool polls a mailbox for work orders but does not disclose whether polling consumes or mutates the mailbox, whether it blocks, what it returns, or what happens on failure. For an operation with no read-only annotation, this is thin.
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 one front-loaded sentence with no wasted words: it immediately states the action and resource. The long status enumeration is somewhat verbose but is the core purpose of the tool.
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?
With four optional but completely undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description does not explain the intended semantics of the filters, which combinations are valid, or what the returned data looks like. It communicates the general purpose but not enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly across realistic scenarios.
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%, so the description must compensate for all four parameters. It lists status values that may relate to the status parameter, but never explicitly maps them to it, and it says nothing about capablity, network_id, or max_age_hours. Only partial meaning is added for one parameter and none for the other three.
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 uses a specific action ('Poll'), a clear resource ('this node's provider mailbox'), and a defined object ('work orders'), while enumerating the relevant statuses. It is internally clear, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools such as rynmesh_list_work_results.
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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool instead of alternatives, no mention of prerequisites, and no exclusion criteria. The word 'poll' implies a use case, but an agent cannot tell whether to choose this over rynmesh_list_work_results or rynmesh_submit_work_order.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.