Skip to main content
Glama

a2a2p — Agent-to-Agent-to-Physical

by com.a2a2p

check_request_status

Check the status of a previously submitted physical-solution request. Returns a generated machine draft as soon as it exists, with a versioned delivery receipt that distinguishes pending_machine_draft, generation_failed, generation_expired, machine_draft, and operator_published. The receipt exposes privacy-minimized automatic-generation progress: observed attempt count, fixed maximum, current eligibility, and exact next automatic-attempt time, without model errors or request content. Professional engineering, supplier-quote, and physical-action claims remain false. generation_failed and generation_expired are terminal for that request id and permit only a caller-confirmed new request from caller-held input. For an immutable revision, it also returns its persisted deterministic readiness_progress comparison.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
request_idYesThe request_id returned by request_physical_solution, e.g. A2A2P-7K2M4X.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
quoteNo
statusYes
messageNo
submittedYes
request_idYes
report_deliveryYesDistinguishes report availability and publication provenance from request lifecycle, supplier quoting, and physical authority.
resolution_reportNo
readiness_progressNo

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers extensively. It discloses the versioned delivery receipt, the distinct status values, terminal behavior for generation_failed and generation_expired, privacy-minimized progress exposure, and the falsehood of professional/supplier/physical-action claims. This is exceptionally transparent.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is dense but front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence contributes meaningful information about behavior or state transitions. It is not a model of brevity, yet the complexity of the tool justifies most of the length.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the single parameter, the presence of an output schema, and the high complexity of the state machine, the description covers what an agent needs: how to identify the request, what statuses exist, what is terminal, and what additional data is returned for immutable revisions.

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% and the single parameter request_id is already documented as 'The request_id returned by request_physical_solution.' The description reinforces the context but does not add materially new parameter-level semantics beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Check the status of a previously submitted physical-solution request.' It distinguishes this tool from request_physical_solution by emphasizing 'previously submitted,' and the detailed status vocabulary makes its purpose unmistakable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description clearly implies when to use this tool: after a physical-solution request has been submitted, to check its status and delivery. It does not explicitly name competing tools like check_quote_job or state when not to use them, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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

All a2a2p — Agent-to-Agent-to-Physical 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tool clusters have near-identical names and responsibilities: prepare_derived_beam_simulation, prepare_reviewed_beam_simulation, and prepare_simulation_study all produce bounded simulation studies, while the validate_* family has five variants with subtle input differences. The descriptions are detailed, but an agent would frequently need to read an entire paragraph to avoid misselection.

Naming Consistency5/5

All 24 tools follow the same snake_case verb_noun pattern: build_, check_, request_, validate_, prepare_, run_, upload_, etc. There are no camelCase names, no vague single-word tools, and no stylistic outliers.

Tool Count3/5

24 tools is at the heavy end of the calibration range, and a large subset of rectangular-beam preparation/validation tools could be consolidated. The broad physical-request and supplier pipeline justifies some of the count, but the overall surface still feels over-scoped.

Completeness4/5

The core workflows are covered: upload, submit, revise, status, spec review, pricing/estimates, quote-job polling, supplier package/email rendering, and a full bounded simulation loop. Missing cancellation, request listing, and actual supplier send/order actions are real but peripheral gaps rather than workflow-killing dead ends.

Resources