seneschal_checkout_invoice_statusPoll the state of a checkout invoice: pending (waiting for payment) -> confirming (payment seen, counting confirmations) -> paid | underpaid | expired | cancelled. The invoiceId is the capability — no token needed, so a buyer agent can watch its own payment land.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| invoiceId | Yes | The invoiceId returned from create. |
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?
With no annotations, the description states the state machine (pending → confirming → paid | underpaid | expired | cancelled) and that invoiceId acts as a capability with no token required. This covers core behavioral expectations, though it does not mention error handling or response format.
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?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then state details and usage context. Every word adds value.
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 one-parameter status tool with no output schema, the description explains the full lifecycle and the auth model. It is complete enough for an agent to understand what to expect from the tool.
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?
The schema already documents invoiceId, but the description adds that invoiceId is 'the capability' and no token is needed, giving important semantic meaning beyond the schema description.
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 clearly states the tool polls the state of a checkout invoice and lists the specific states. The verb 'poll' and resource 'checkout invoice status' are precise, distinguishing it from the sibling create 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 description gives clear context that a buyer agent can watch its own payment land, implying use after invoice creation. It notes that no token is needed, but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, so a 4 is appropriate.
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.
Tools are grouped by domain (board, private_watch, zecmon) with clear lifecycle separation, but seneschal_list_at_risk_borrowers and seneschal_list_borrowers overlap heavily, and the USDC vs crypto variants of private_watch_create/topup could be confused without careful reading.
Most tools follow a seneschal_<domain>_<action> pattern, but verb/noun order varies (get_borrower vs list_borrowers vs board_list) and outliers like seneschal_health and seneschal_q break the pattern.
At 35 tools, the server is definitely heavy, but it covers multiple distinct domains (DeFi data, privacy-chain monitoring, notice boards, payments), so the count is at the high end of reasonable rather than absurdly bloated.
Core workflows are well covered: borrower discovery/analysis, liquidations, private watch lifecycle, Zcash scanning lifecycle, board operations, and checkout invoices. Minor gaps like board deletion or watch cancellation exist but are workaround-able.