Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Lightbringer

by com.lightbringer
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Check Lightbringer analysis status

get_task_status

Returns an automated task by task_id. A feedback task comes with the same status, progress, findings and per-analysis errors as start_innovation_feedback; active analyses are refreshed and their status and findings saved in Lightbringer. Succeeded, partially_succeeded and failed are terminal; queued and running tasks are still in progress. findings_error denotes unavailable findings and does not change terminal execution status. This endpoint does not track professional service requests, patent preparation or filing milestones.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
task_idYesThe automated task_id from start_innovation_feedback or list_tasks

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeNo
statusYes
resultsYes
task_idYesThe automated task identifier; shared by start and status responses
progressYes
expires_atNoTask expiry in ISO 8601 format: 30 days after creation. Reads do not extend retention.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / task_id / description
      Previous value: -"The automated task_id returned by start_innovation_feedback"New value: +"The automated task_id from start_innovation_feedback or list_tasks"
    • addedOutput schema / properties / type
      Added value: +{
+  "const": "innovation_feedback",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Despite having only a task_id parameter, the description discloses a real side effect: active analyses are refreshed and their status and findings saved in Lightbringer, which explains the non-read-only hint. It also explains that findings_error marks unavailable findings without altering terminal execution status, a nuance annotations cannot express. It could go further on whether refresh is throttled or whether repeated calls incur cost.

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?

Front-loads what is returned, then covers refresh behavior, status semantics, and exclusions in a tight sequence with no filler. The terminal/non-terminal sentence pairs two clauses efficiently rather than listing values separately.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be restated, and the description instead supplies the operational context an agent needs: state semantics, side effects, error-field interpretation, and explicit out-of-scope domains. Nothing material for correctly invoking this tool is missing.

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 schema already documents task_id as coming from start_innovation_feedback or list_tasks, so the description's mention of task_id adds nothing new. Baseline 3 applies since the schema carries parameter semantics.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Returns an automated task by task_id') and immediately scopes the resource to automated tasks, explicitly excluding professional service requests, patent preparation, and filing milestones. That negative scoping separates it from siblings like list_tasks and get_review without the agent needing to inspect either schema.

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?

Explains that this is for retrieving a single automated task by id and clarifies which status values mean work is finished versus still running, which tells the agent when polling is worthwhile. It does not explicitly route the agent to list_tasks for enumeration (that link lives only in the schema), so it stops short of full alternative-routing guidance.

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

All Lightbringer toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources