Query the current state of any in-flight async operation by operation_id.
WHEN TO USE: Use to poll the state of a pending_async operation when no webhook callback has arrived or to check progress. WHEN NOT TO USE: Do not poll more frequently than once per 10 seconds — use webhook delivery for real-time updates instead. COST: free - no key required LATENCY: ~50ms
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| operation_id | Yes |
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?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful operational context: cost is free, no API key is required, latency is ~50ms, and polling frequency is rate-limited. No contradictions with annotations.
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 well-organized: the core sentence is front-loaded, followed by clearly labeled when-to-use, when-not-to-use, cost, and latency sections. Every line contributes useful information without redundancy.
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 single-parameter polling tool, the description covers core purpose, polling guidance, rate limits, cost, and latency. It does not describe the shape of the returned status or values, but the absence of an output schema and the straightforward semantics make this a minor gap.
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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description needed to compensate for the undocumented operation_id. It only restates that the operation is queried by operation_id, without explaining where the ID comes from, its format, or any example, so it adds little beyond the property 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 opening sentence states a specific action ('Query the current state') on a clear resource (in-flight async operation) keyed by operation_id. It is unambiguous, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling get_outcome tool.
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 'WHEN TO USE' and 'WHEN NOT TO USE' sections provide explicit conditions: poll pending_async operations when no webhook has arrived or to check progress, and avoid polling more often than once per 10 seconds in favor of webhooks. This is clear, actionable guidance with exclusions.
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 maps to a distinct stage or concern: link preflight vs import, business discovery vs verification, scheduling, async status/outcome, cost preview, and health. The closest pair (check_booking_link and import_booking_url) is explicitly differentiated as a free guard vs actual registration.
Nearly all tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern such as find_business, verify_business, schedule_appointment, and get_status. The only real deviation is self_test, which is a standard health-check name but not verb_noun.
Nine tools is well-scoped for an appointment-booking service that also needs async operation tracking, cost estimation, and health checks. Each tool has a clear role and none feel redundant or tacked on.
The toolset covers the main lifecycle: find or import an SMB, verify it, schedule/cancel/reschedule, poll status, retrieve outcomes, and preview costs. Minor gaps exist—send_message and capture_lead are referenced as downstream operations but not exposed, and there is no direct tool for listing supported platforms.