Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Morris Golf

by golf.morris
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Get write status

get_write_status
Read-onlyIdempotent

Check the state of a change proposed earlier through this same connection: pending (with its approval_url), executing, done (with its result), failed, denied or expired. Use it after the player says they approved, and before proposing the same change again. Read-only.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "request_id": "<request_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_write_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
request_idYesThe request_id returned by the write tool that proposed the change.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / request_id / description
      Added value: +"The request_id returned by the write tool that proposed the change."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is settled; the description adds real value by naming the state machine and the payloads attached to states (approval_url on pending, result on done) and the session/connection binding. It does not say whether states eventually expire for the caller's polling loop or how long expiry takes, which is the one remaining behavioral gap.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and state list, followed by the usage rules. The trailing 'Read-only.' is a one-word restatement of readOnlyHint and is the only real waste, but it is minor and arguably reinforces the distinction from write tools.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description compensates well by enumerating possible return states and the notable fields (approval_url, result), which is what an agent needs to branch on the response. It stops short of describing the shape of the 'result' payload or whether pending states should be retried, which keeps it from a 5.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single parameter already documents that request_id comes from the proposing write tool, so the schema carries the semantics. The description never mentions request_id itself and adds no format or sourcing detail beyond it, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Check the state of a change proposed earlier') and enumerates the exact state values (pending, executing, done, failed, denied, expired). It also scopes the lookup ('through this same connection'), which cleanly separates it from the surrounding read-only getters.

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?

Gives explicit trigger conditions: 'after the player says they approved' and 'before proposing the same change again.' That second clause is a genuine when-not/procedural guardrail rather than a generic hint, leaving little inference needed.

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

All Morris Golf 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