Skip to main content
Glama

a2a2p — Agent-to-Agent-to-Physical

co_invent_pass_status

Needs the signed-in link https://a2a2p.com/co-invent/mcp. On this public link it answers with how your person connects it. Where an invention pass is and the one next step. Set wait_seconds (up to 20) to wait for a running step first.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "pass_id": "<pass_id>"
    },
    "name": "co_invent_pass_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pass_idYes
wait_secondsNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / wait_seconds / maximum
      Previous value: -45New value: +20
  2. Added

TDQS

C2.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It mentions a signed-in link requirement and waiting behavior, but does not clearly state that the operation is read-only, whether it has side effects, or what permissions are needed.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is short but poorly structured: it opens with an unclear statement about a signed-in link and a public link before reaching the actual status purpose. The wording "how your person connects it" is ambiguous and not front-loaded.

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?

The tool is simple and has an output schema, so return values need not be explained. However, the description still leaves key invocation context unclear, especially pass_id semantics and when this status tool should be chosen over sibling tools.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain both parameters. It explains wait_seconds as waiting for a running step up to 20 seconds, but leaves pass_id completely undefined beyond its name.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The phrase "Where an invention pass is and the one next step" implies a status/next-action lookup, but it does not use a clear verb like "get status" and does not distinguish this from sibling tools such as co_invent_pass_read or check_request_status.

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?

It gives a parameter-level usage hint to set wait_seconds while a step is running, but does not explain when to use this tool versus related siblings or when not to use it.

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.

Resources