Check the conversational verification state — use after the user uploads their ID via the browser upload link (or any time you need to re-orient). Returns the current step and the fields still missing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| message | Yes | ||
| nextStep | No | ||
| uploadUrl | No | ||
| missingFields | No | ||
| verificationUrl | 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 already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, indicating safe read operation. The description adds value by stating it returns the current step and missing fields, and confirms the tool is non-destructive. No contradictions.
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 with no filler. The first sentence states the action and usage context, the second describes the return value. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, clear annotations, and an output schema that presumably defines the return format), the description sufficiently covers purpose, usage, and behavioral context without missing critical details.
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 zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the tool's schema already conveys all parameter info. The description does not need to add parameter details, meeting the baseline for no-param tools.
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 checks conversational verification state, specifies when to use it (after ID upload or for re-orientation), and distinguishes from siblings like 'get_kyc_status' and 'submit_kyc_document' by focusing on the verification state and missing fields.
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 explicitly advises use after ID upload and for re-orientation, providing clear context. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, but the guidance is sufficient for a simple read-only check tool.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, especially in areas like card management and shopping. However, the KYC flow has multiple overlapping tools (start_kyc, get_kyc_status, check_kyc_document, submit_kyc_document, submit_kyc_fields) that could confuse an agent despite detailed descriptions.
Tool names consistently use snake_case with a verb_noun pattern (e.g., add_funds, create_card, list_cards). A few exceptions like surprise_me and whoami break the pattern but are still intuitive overall.
50 tools is on the high side for a single server, but the broad domain (cards, shopping, KYC, support, settings) partially justifies it. Some tools could be merged (e.g., KYC flow tools) without losing clarity.
The tool surface covers core workflows: CRUD for cards, transactions, KYC, support, shopping, and account management. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no update_card general, no cancel order in shopping), but overall the set is comprehensive for the stated purpose.
