Poll the state of a verification's PSD export: status (pending|queued|in_progress|completed|failed), file size, canvas dimensions, downloads used, and download expiry.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| verification_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses what is returned (status, file size, canvas dimensions, downloads used, expiry) and implies a read-only operation, but it does not mention behaviors like error conditions, authorization needs, or what happens before an export is requested.
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?
One sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded, followed by a compact list of returned fields. No wasted words.
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 tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema, and the description already lists key return values. It misses only the explicit link to request_psd_export as the precursor action, which would make context fully complete.
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% and the description only implies verification_id through 'a verification's PSD export'. It does not explain the format, origin, or how to obtain the verification_id, so the single parameter is underdocumented.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: poll the state of a verification's PSD export. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like request_psd_export (which creates) and get_verification (which returns general verification data).
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 word 'poll' implies this is for repeatedly checking export status after a request, so the usage context is clear. However, it does not explicitly say to use it after request_psd_export or mention when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource/action: verification creation (RAW+JPEG vs single-image), retrieval/listing, sharing, PSD export, upload helper, quota, tags, and marketplace listings are clearly separated. The closest pair — verify_photo and verify_content_credentials — is disambiguated by input type and forensic scope.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: create_, get_, list_, request_, share_, unshare_, verify_. Single-item getters use get_, collection getters use list_, and the verification verbs are uniform.
14 tools is well within the well-scoped range and each maps to a distinct operation. The count covers core verification plus sharing, PSD export, uploads, quota, tags, and marketplace without feeling padded.
The core verification lifecycle is complete: upload, verify, retrieve, list, check quota, share/unshare, and export PSD. Minor gaps exist — tag assignment is only done via web app/API, PSD download happens outside MCP, and there are no delete/listing-management tools — but they do not block the primary workflow.
