Poll for human approval of a delegation request. When status is "approved", returns the delegation_token to use as buyer_delegation_token in execute_checkout.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| device_code | Yes | device_code returned by request_delegation |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No | ||
| delivery | No | ||
| user_code | No | ||
| approvalUrl | No | ||
| device_code | No | ||
| delegation_token | No |
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 provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds the polling behavior (repeated calls) and specifies the condition for returning a token. This enriches understanding beyond 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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no extraneous words. Highly concise and well-structured.
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?
With an output schema present, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the workflow and relation to siblings. Could mention polling loop duration or error handling, but overall adequate.
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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds value by stating that device_code comes from request_delegation, providing source context.
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 is for polling human approval of a delegation request. It specifies the action (poll), the resource (delegation approval), and the outcome (returns delegation_token). This distinguishes it from siblings like request_delegation and execute_checkout.
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 implies usage after request_delegation and before execute_checkout, and that polling continues until status is 'approved'. However, it does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or mention alternatives like submit_delegation_otp.
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 action or resource, with detailed descriptions that clearly differentiate cart management, checkout flow, payment steps, delegation, orders, and product operations. Potential overlaps like get_active_cart vs. get_cart are resolved by their specific use cases.
All tools use a consistent verb_noun_snake_case pattern (e.g., add_to_cart, set_shipping_address). There are no mixing of conventions like camelCase or inconsistent verb styles.
26 tools is on the higher side but appropriate for a comprehensive e-commerce server covering product discovery, cart management, checkout, payment, orders, and reviews. Could potentially be streamlined slightly, but still reasonable.
The tool set covers the full e-commerce lifecycle: site listing, product search/compare/reviews, cart CRUD, coupon application, shipping, checkout, payment with delegation and OTP, order retrieval, and back-in-stock alerts. No obvious gaps for typical buyer workflows.
