Skip to main content
Glama

Niche — Editorial Intelligence

by com.nicheangle

Poll a brand-kit ingest

niche_brand_kit_ingest_status
Read-only

Poll the result of an async niche_brand_kit_ingest. Pass the ingest_id it returned. status: 'ingesting' (keep polling) | 'done' (response carries the full kit plus detected[]/skipped[]/errors[]/diff[]/left_unchanged_because_populated[]) | 'failed' (error plus failed_step; the kit was not written). The marker expires 30 min after the ingest starts.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ingest_idYesThe ingest_id returned by niche_brand_kit_ingest.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint), the description discloses key behavioral traits: the marker expires after 30 minutes, 'failed' means the kit was not written and gives failed_step, and 'done' includes specific arrays (detected/skipped/errors/diff/left_unchanged). This adds significant operational context not available in the annotations alone.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and uses a compact pipe-separated list for status details. Every sentence adds necessary information with no redundancies or filler.

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 absence of an output schema, the description thoroughly covers return behavior: statuses, payload contents for 'done', failure details for 'failed', and the expiration timer. This is complete for an async status poll tool with a single parameter.

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?

The only parameter `ingest_id` is fully documented in the schema with the same meaning as in the description ('The ingest_id returned by niche_brand_kit_ingest'). The description adds no additional semantic value beyond confirming this association, so the baseline of 3 applies given 100% schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb+resource: 'Poll the result of an async niche_brand_kit_ingest.' It distinguishes itself from the sibling `niche_brand_kit_ingest` by explicitly referencing that async process as the context for this status polling tool.

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?

It provides clear usage context: 'Pass the `ingest_id` it returned' and explains the statuses to guide the polling loop ('ingesting' keep polling, 'done' response, 'failed' kit not written). It does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or alternatives, but given the tool's specific role, the context is strong enough for a 4.

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

All Niche — Editorial Intelligence 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

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Tools are mostly distinct across the pipeline—discovery, brand setup, drafting, rendering, publishing, session management—and descriptions are detailed. Minor overlap exists between niche_signal_scan and niche_intelligence_query (both discovery) and between niche_add_output and niche_draft_create (both generate outputs), but the descriptions clearly differentiate them. Overall, an agent can reliably select the right tool.

Naming Consistency3/5

All tools share the `niche_` prefix and snake_case, but the verb/noun order is inconsistent: some are verb-first (add_output, render_image_card, list_sessions) while many are noun-first (angle_propose, brand_kit_ingest, draft_create, session_cancel). This mixed convention requires the agent to learn each name individually rather than predict the pattern.

Tool Count3/5

25 tools is on the heavy side but appropriate for the platform's scope—full editorial intelligence from discovery to publish. No redundant tools, and each covers a distinct aspect, but the count is high enough that it feels dense and may require orientation (which niche_whoami addresses).

Completeness4/5

The toolset covers the full workflow: discovery, angle proposal, drafting, revision, publishing, rendering, asset attachment, brand setup, and session management. Minor gaps exist, such as no direct read tool for the current BrandKit (only via ingest status) and no hard-delete tool (session_cancel mentions the REST endpoint instead), but these are edge cases and agents can work around them.

Resources