solve_status
Status eines Solve-Jobs (pending/running/completed/failed) inkl. Fortschritt.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes |
Output Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
planner
by com.vigotime
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the status values and progress information, which is the core behavior. However, it does not mention error cases, non-destructive nature, or any other operational details. For a simple status tool, this is adequate but not rich.
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 a single concise sentence in German that effectively front-loads the purpose and key details without extraneous text. Every word adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema exists (as indicated by context), so the description does not need to detail return values. The description covers the essential status values and progress. It could mention edge cases or prerequisites, but for this tool, the information is largely sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero description coverage for job_id (0%). The description does not explicitly explain what job_id is, its format, or how to obtain it, aside from referencing a 'Solve-Job'. Since coverage is low, the description should compensate but does not, leaving the parameter merely named.
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: retrieving the status of a Solve job, listing specific status values (pending/running/completed/failed) and progress. This distinguishes it from siblings like solve_submit (submission) and solve_result (final result).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied: use this to check a job's status and progress. However, no explicit guidance is given on when to use this instead of solve_result or solve_submit, such as polling before retrieving results. Lacks explicit when-to-use and exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.