odei_connect_status
Return current ODEI Connect ceremony progress.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| os | No | ||
| session_token | Yes |
connect
by ai.odei
TDQS
C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only states 'return' with no mention of side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or behavioral traits. Minimal disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with no waste, but under-specifies critical information. Conciseness is achieved at the expense of completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description does not explain what 'ceremony progress' means, how the os parameter affects behavior, or the return format. Incomplete for reliable invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description provides no parameter details. The os and session_token parameters are unexplained, leaving the agent without semantic guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns current ODEI Connect ceremony progress, specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like handshake or plan by implying a read-only status check, but does not explicitly differentiate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as odei_connect_plan or wm_recall. The description lacks context about prerequisites or conditions for use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
B3.1/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: handshake, plan, report step, status, talk for the ceremony; recall and remember for memory. No overlap between tools or groups.
Naming Consistency3/5
Tools use snake_case, but prefixes are inconsistent: five use 'odei_connect_' and two use 'wm_'. While each group is internally consistent, the mix across a single server named 'connect' is confusing.
Tool Count4/5
7 tools is a reasonable count, not too few or many. However, the server covers two distinct domains (ceremony and memory), which might be better separated.
Completeness3/5
The connect ceremony tools cover handshake, plan, report, status, talk—seemingly complete for a session lifecycle. The memory tools only provide read and write, missing update and delete, which are notable gaps for a memory store.