Retrieve the final OutcomeReceipt for a completed operation.
WHEN TO USE: Use after get_status returns success/failure/partial to retrieve the full result with cost and reason codes. WHEN NOT TO USE: Do not use for operations still in pending/executing state — use get_status first. 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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds meaningful operational context beyond that: cost is free with no key required, latency is ~50ms, and the tool is restricted to completed operations. It also discloses that the result includes cost and reason codes, which is useful behavioral information not present in 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 short, front-loaded with the core purpose, and organized into scannable WHEN TO USE/WHEN NOT TO USE/COST/LATENCY sections. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.
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 low-complexity tool with rich annotations, the description covers purpose, timing, cost, latency, and high-level return contents. The only notable gap is the explicit origin of operation_id; otherwise the agent has enough guidance to call it correctly.
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 the undocumented operation_id parameter. It implies the ID comes from operations tracked by get_status, but it never explicitly states that operation_id is the ID returned by get_status or how to obtain it. This is a gap for an agent deciding what value to supply.
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 verb ('Retrieve') and a clear resource ('final OutcomeReceipt') scoped to completed operations. It distinguishes itself from get_status by stating the phase of the operation it applies to, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.
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 WHEN TO USE and WHEN NOT TO USE sections state that the tool should be called only after get_status indicates success/failure/partial and not for pending/executing operations. It names the alternative tool (get_status) directly, making selection unambiguous.
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.
The three company-verification tools (verify_company_record, screen_sanctions, lookup_us_contracts) are clearly distinct by data source and purpose. get_status and get_outcome are the main potential confusion, but their lifecycle boundary (pending vs completed) is explicitly described.
Naming mixes multiple verb styles: get_outcome/get_status, lookup_us_contracts, preview_cost, screen_sanctions, self_test, verify_company_record. There is no consistent verb_noun or resource-oriented pattern across the set.
Seven tools is a reasonable count for a company-verification/due-diligence server. However, three of them (get_status, get_outcome, preview_cost) are generic infrastructure that feel bolted on rather than part of the core verification workflow.
The core verification surface covers company registry existence, sanctions screening, and US federal contracts, which addresses common due-diligence queries. The set is incomplete as a whole because get_status/get_outcome depend on async operations that no included tool can initiate, and preview_cost references operations unrelated to company verification.