Skip to main content
Glama

OpenArx

by ai.openarx

get_document_status

Check the processing status of a submitted document.

Status reference: downloaded — accepted, queued for indexing parsing — extracting text from latex/markdown/PDF translating — auto-translating to English (non-en originals only) chunking — splitting content into semantic chunks enriching — extracting code/dataset/benchmark links embedding — generating vector embeddings (Gemini + SPECTER2) ready — fully indexed, searchable failed — pipeline error (retryable) download_failed — source fetch failed (retryable; rare for Portal submissions) duplicate — detected as duplicate of an existing document rejected — quality/spam gate rejection (terminal, non-retryable) listed — registry-only entry (not user-submitted, only visible to operators)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
run_idNoOptional. The active methodist run_id (as returned by the methodist diagnose / get_current_dose door). Pass it whenever you call this tool while working inside a run, so the call is attributed to that run for the §8 usage crosscheck — attribution is run-anchored, so it stays correct even if your access token refreshes mid-run. Must be YOUR run: a run_id owned by a different principal, or a non-existent run_id, is rejected.
document_idYesCore document ID (UUID)

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description adequately discloses behavioral details: it lists all possible status values and explains their meanings, including retryable vs terminal states. It also clarifies the optional run_id parameter's attribution behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is succinct: a single sentence stating the purpose followed by a well-formatted status reference list. Every line adds value, and the key information is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description sufficiently explains the expected return (a status string) by enumerating all possible values. It could mention that the response likely contains additional fields (e.g., timestamps), but the status list is thorough enough for the tool's core function.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% (both parameters have descriptions). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema for document_id, but the run_id description in the schema is already detailed. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Check the processing status of a submitted document.' It lists all possible statuses with detailed explanations, and the function is distinct from sibling tools like get_document or search tools.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_document for full document info). The description does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All OpenArx toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clear distinct purposes, but some overlap exists between explore_topic and methodist_explore_topic, and between find_related and find_related_claims. Descriptions generally differentiate them well.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with methodist_ prefix for research workflow tools, though 'paginate' and 'methodist' (without underscore) are minor deviations.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is too many for a single server's scope, exceeding the 25+ threshold. The server combines two major workflows (literature search and research process guidance), which would be better split.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a wide range of operations: multiple search modes, document submission and versioning, topic exploration, evidence checking, methodology search, and research guidance. Minor gaps include lack of document deletion or metadata update without new version.

Resources