Check a choice set's status to see if the owner has selected an option. Returns draft or chosen state with the chosenOptionId, allowing you to attach it to a purchase.
Poll a choice set from present_choices. Returns status draft|chosen and chosenOptionId. Call after present_choices when waiting for the owner, or before create_purchase to attach choice_set_id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| choice_set_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states the operation is a poll, implies read-only status checking, and discloses the return payload (status and chosenOptionId). It does not explicitly rule out side effects or describe error cases, but for a simple status-polling tool the disclosed behavior is adequate.
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?
Three short sentences front-load the action and return values, then add workflow guidance. There is no filler; every sentence carries distinct and useful information.
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 single-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers purpose, return values, and call timing. It could add details about what chosenOptionId contains when status is draft, but the current level is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in the intended flow.
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 compensates by connecting choice_set_id to present_choices and create_purchase: 'Poll a choice set from present_choices' and 'attach choice_set_id.' This tells the agent the ID refers to a previously presented choice set, which is meaningful beyond the bare parameter name.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Poll a choice set from present_choices.' It also names the returned fields (status draft|chosen and chosenOptionId), making the tool's function immediately identifiable and distinct from siblings like present_choices and create_purchase.
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?
Explicit usage timing is given: 'Call after present_choices when waiting for the owner, or before create_purchase to attach choice_set_id.' This clearly tells an agent when in the workflow to invoke this tool, though it does not spell out exclusions or alternative tools beyond the stated workflow anchors.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.