Lightweight status check for a simulation run (fast, <50ms).
Use this for polling instead of get_run. Returns only: id, status, progress_pct (0-100), eta_seconds, error_message, and compute_backend.
Poll every 5-10 seconds. Terminal states: complete, error, cancelled.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| run_id | Yes | The run ID |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the tool is fast (<50ms), limited to specific return fields, and defines terminal states. This is substantial behavioral context beyond the bare function name and schema.
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?
The description is succinct and well-structured. It front-loads the core purpose in the first line, then adds usage guidance and terminal states in compact, information-dense sentences. No word is wasted.
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 (one parameter, output schema present), the description provides all necessary context: what it returns, when to use it, how often to poll, and what the end states are. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
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?
The schema already provides 100% coverage for the single run_id parameter. The description adds little parameter-specific detail beyond confirming it's the run ID, which is already in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but does not exceed it.
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 identifies the tool as a lightweight status check for a simulation run, using the specific verb 'status check'. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get_run by explicitly recommending it 'instead of get_run', making the purpose unambiguous.
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?
Explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use this for polling instead of get_run'. Provides concrete polling guidance ('Poll every 5-10 seconds') and lists terminal states, giving the agent clear operational instructions.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: project listing vs. details, run polling vs. full details, and separate lifecycle operations (start/cancel/retry). No two tools overlap in purpose.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (list_projects, get_run, start_simulation) with clear verbs. The compound get_run_status is still predictable.
9 tools is a well-scoped size for a domain focused on managing flood simulation runs. Each tool covers a necessary operation without redundancy.
The run lifecycle is complete: start, poll, retrieve results, cancel, retry. Minor gap is the lack of scenario creation or building tools, but the server appears to operate on pre-existing scenarios.
