Skip to main content
Glama

get_draft_status

Read-only

Check the status of a draft created via create_post_draft, schedule_post_draft or create_x_article_draft. Returns the current state (pending, approved, rejected, expired, published) so you can tell the user what happened. A pending draft is waiting for approve_draft after the user says yes in chat. Only returns drafts owned by this user.

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": {
      "draftId": "<draftId>"
    },
    "name": "get_draft_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
draftIdYesThe draft_id returned by create_post_draft or schedule_post_draft.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only and non-destructive behavior, but the description adds meaningful context: the possible states, the ownership boundary, and the meaning of pending status. It does not mention error behavior for missing or inaccessible drafts, which keeps it just shy of a 5.

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 short, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds useful information about states, pending behavior, or ownership. There is no redundant or filler text.

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 simple read-only status lookup with one fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficient. It identifies the relevant state values and clarifies ownership scope, so an agent can call it and interpret the result correctly.

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 single draftId parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds context about where the ID comes from but does not provide additional syntax or constraints beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: checking the status of a draft. It explicitly ties the tool to the creation siblings (create_post_draft, schedule_post_draft, create_x_article_draft), making its role distinct from approve_draft or the creation tools.

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?

It clearly says when to use the tool: after a draft is created, to tell the user what happened. It also states the workflow condition for the pending state and names approve_draft as the next action after user confirmation, leaving little ambiguity.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.