Skip to main content
Glama

ateam_test_status

Poll the progress of an async test. Pass chain_id for the WHOLE run (recommended — the root job finishing does NOT mean the run finished; a handoff may still be going). Pass job_id to poll one job alone: iteration count, tool call steps, status, and result when done.

Set include_chain:true to ALSO include the full chain tree (every job in the chain, rooted at this job_id, with parent/child linkage). Use when this job dispatched askAnySkill subcalls and you want a single snapshot of the whole multi-skill state instead of polling each child job_id separately.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
job_idNoONE job inside the chain, when you want that job alone. Omit and pass chain_id for the whole run — a root job can be 'completed' while a handoff is still running.
actor_idNoOptional. WHO is asking. A job belongs to an actor and Core enforces that on per-job reads, so a tenant key alone is refused. Usually unnecessary — the session remembers the actor from ateam_conversation/ateam_test_skill. Pass it to inspect a job run by a DIFFERENT actor (e.g. a real user's).
chain_idNoTHE EXECUTION'S IDENTITY — what ateam_conversation returns and what you actually hold. A chain is the whole run: root job + every handoff + every askAnySkill subcall. Prefer this.
skill_idNoThe skill ID
solution_idYesThe solution ID
include_chainNoIf true, includes response.chain — the full chain tree rooted at this job_id (chainJobs[] with parentJobId/relation/depth, executionSteps[] with tool-nesting). Costs one extra Core call. Default false (back-compat).

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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 async/handoff behavior clearly ('root job finishing does NOT mean the run finished'), the extra Core call cost of include_chain, the default value of include_chain (false, back-compat), and the Core enforcement on per-job reads. It doesn't describe failure modes or rate limits, but for a status-polling tool the disclosed behavior is substantial.

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?

The description is moderately sized but dense with useful information. It front-loads the most important guidance (poll the WHOLE run, not just root job) in the first sentence, then follows with mode-specific usage and the include_chain behavior. A few phrases like 'THE EXECUTION'S IDENTITY' in the schema are slightly verbose, but the description itself is well-organized.

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?

Given 6 parameters, 100% schema coverage, no output schema, and a polling context, the description covers the essential behavioral choices well: chain vs job polling, include_chain cost, actor requirements. It lacks a few details like pagination (if any) and error/status value ranges, but the absence of an output schema means the description isn't expected to fully enumerate response fields. The complexity of the async chain model is adequately handled.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds value by explaining the execution model: chain = root job + handoffs + askAnySkill subcalls, why actor_id is usually unnecessary but needed for different-actor jobs, and what include_chain's response contains. This context goes beyond the schema's one-line descriptions.

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 identifies this as a polling tool for async test progress. It explicitly distinguishes two polling modes (chain_id for whole run vs job_id for one job), and the sibling list confirms it's distinct from ateam_chain_status/ateam_get_chain by focusing on test status polling. The verb 'Poll' plus specific resources (chain_id/job_id) makes the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use each parameter: chain_id for the whole run with an explicit warning that root job completion doesn't mean run completion, job_id for single-job polling with detailed semantics, and include_chain when dispatching askAnySkill subcalls to avoid polling child job_ids separately. It also warns that actor_id is usually unnecessary since the session remembers the actor.

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.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, with detailed descriptions that differentiate similar functions like chain polling vs. chain inspection. However, there is slight overlap between ateam_design_advisor, ateam_get_spec, and ateam_spec_search, which all serve design guidance, potentially causing confusion if descriptions are not read carefully.

Naming Consistency4/5

The naming mostly follows a consistent verb_noun pattern with the 'ateam_' prefix (e.g., ateam_get_solution, ateam_create_connector, ateam_test_skill). Minor deviations include ateam_patch (missing object) and ateam_redeploy (verb only), but overall the pattern is predictable and clear.

Tool Count3/5

With 47 tools, the count is high and exceeds the typical 15-tool threshold for a well-scoped set. However, the tools cover a broad and complex platform (auth, deployment, testing, GitHub integration, scaffolding), and each tool appears to have a distinct role, making the count borderline acceptable rather than excessive.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers the full lifecycle of building, deploying, testing, and managing A-Team solutions, including design, GitHub integration, and verification. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit tool for deleting individual files (though patching can overwrite) and no standalone skill listing, but these are not critical dead ends for an agent.