hypathesis

Get Analysis Status

get_analysis_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check the processing status of an uploaded paper.

Poll this tool after uploading a PDF until status is 'Ready' before
calling get_variable_relationships.

Args:
    file_id: The file_id returned by the /upload endpoint.
    authorization: Optional. API key as 'Bearer hk_...' or 'hk_...'.
    session_token: Optional. The session_token returned by /upload for anonymous uploads.

Returns:
    {
      "status": "Processing" | "Ready" | "Empty" | "Ineligible" | "Pending",
      "edges_count": int,
      "variables_count": int
    }

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`file_id`	Yes
`authorization`	No
`session_token`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds useful context beyond this by listing the possible status values (Processing, Ready, Empty, Ineligible, Pending), explaining the polling loop expectation, and documenting auth/session options.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a one-line usage directive and compact Args/Returns sections. Every sentence adds needed information; there is no filler or repetition.

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?

For a 3-parameter polling tool with an output schema, annotations, and documented auth variants, the description covers all essential context: why to call it, how to call it repeatedly, what each argument means, and what status values signal completion. Nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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

Parameters5/5

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

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: file_id comes from /upload, authorization is an optional API key with a concrete format, and session_token is optional for anonymous uploads. This is far more informative than the bare schema names and defaults.

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 opens with a clear verb+resource pair, 'Check the processing status of an uploaded paper,' which precisely defines the tool's function. It also distinguishes this from the sibling get_variable_relationships by framing this as the prerequisite polling step for that tool.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives an explicit workflow: poll after uploading a PDF until status is 'Ready' before calling get_variable_relationships. This clearly states when to use the tool and how it relates to the alternative/downstream sibling, leaving no ambiguity about its place in the process.

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

All hypathesis tools Inspect

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

A4.8/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a distinct purpose: two for authentication flow (initiate, check), one for status polling, one for retrieving results. No overlap or ambiguity.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (initiate_device_auth, check_device_auth, get_analysis_status, get_variable_relationships), making them predictable.

Tool Count5/5

Four tools is well-scoped for a focused service handling authentication, status checking, and result retrieval without unnecessary bloat.

Completeness3/5

The tools cover auth and retrieval but lack an upload tool, requiring external action to start the workflow. This is a notable gap for a complete lifecycle.

Resources

Need Help?