Get scenario details including its current status and latest run.
The status field is computed from the latest run and will be one of: created, building, built, queued, computing, processing, complete, error, or cancelled. A scenario must be in 'built' status before it can be run.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_id | Yes | The project ID | |
| scenario_id | Yes | The scenario 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 transparency burden. It discloses that the status is computed from the latest run and enumerates all possible status values. It also highlights the 'built' prerequisite for running, adding behavioral nuance beyond a simple 'get'. It does not mention permissions, rate limits, or side effects, but for a read-only tool this is adequate.
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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence gives the core purpose, and the second adds necessary detail about status computation and a usage constraint. No redundant words or restatement of the tool name. Every sentence adds value.
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?
For a simple 2-parameter read tool with an output schema declared, the description fully covers the key aspects: what it returns (details, status, latest run), how status is derived, and an important prerequisite for using scenarios. The output schema accounts for field-level detail, so the description need not expand further.
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 has 100% coverage for both parameters (project_id and scenario_id), each described as 'The project ID' and 'The scenario ID'. The description does not add any additional meaning or relationship between the parameters, so it stays at the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get scenario details including its current status and latest run.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools: get_run and get_run_status are for runs, get_project is for projects, and list_* are for listing. The tool's scope (scenario details) is 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?
The description gives context on when to use this: a scenario must be in 'built' status before it can be run, implying that this tool is used to check status prior to running. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the sibling list makes the differentiation reasonably clear.
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.
