Skip to main content
Glama

Cleotic

by io.github.generaldataworks
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Get operation

get_operation
Read-onlyIdempotent

Follow a write: its live status (pending, completed, or failed) read from the resource itself, its progress, and how long to wait before checking again. Only the member and connection that made the write can read it.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
operation_idYesOperation ID returned by a write tool.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYes
generated_atYesRFC 3339 time the response was made.
schema_versionYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • addedInput schema / properties / operation_id / minLength
      Added value: +1
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "data": {
+      "additionalProperties": false,
+      "properties": {
+        "brand": {
+          "additionalProperties": false,
+          "properties": {
+            "id": {
+              "type": "string"
+            },
+            "name": {
+              "type": "string"
+            },
+            "url": {
+              "description": "The brand's website, or empty when none is set.",
+              "type": "string"
+            }
+          },
+          "required": [
+            "id",
+            "name",
+            "url"
+          ],
+          "type": [
+            "null",
+            "object"
+          ]
+        },
+        "created_at": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "message": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "operation_id": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "poll_after_seconds": {
+          "type": "integer"
+        },
+        "progress": {
+          "additionalProperties": false,
+          "properties": {
+            "done": {
+              "type": "integer"
+            },
+            "message": {
+              "type": "string"
+            },
+            "stage": {
+              "type": "string"
+            },
+            "total": {
+              "description": "0 when the total is not known.",
+              "type": "integer"
+            }
+          },
+          "required": [
+            "stage",
+            "done",
+            "total",
+            "message"
+          ],
+          "type": [
+            "null",
+            "object"
+          ]
+        },
+        "resource": {
+          "description": "The resource the write returned; see the write tool's output schema."
+        },
+        "status": {
+          "description": "pending: still working (or, right after a dropped connection, not yet known); completed; or failed.",
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "tool": {
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "operation_id",
+        "tool",
+        "status",
+        "brand",
+        "resource",
+        "progress",
+        "poll_after_seconds",
+        "message",
+        "created_at"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "generated_at": {
+      "description": "RFC 3339 time the response was made.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "schema_version": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "schema_version",
+    "generated_at",
+    "data"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. Added

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is handled. The description adds a genuinely new behavioral constraint beyond structured data: 'Only the member and connection that made the write can read it,' which warns the agent about per-connection scoping and potential authorization failures. It stops short of describing failure behavior when the operation does not exist or is still pending.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, and front-loaded: the return payload is described first, then the access restriction. Every clause earns its place by telling the agent something actionable.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value shape need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile; the description still usefully names the status vocabulary and the caller-scoping rule. Complete enough to call correctly, with only minor gaps around terminal-state and not-found behavior.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already fully documents operation_id and its provenance. The description reinforces the polling purpose but adds no new format, syntax, or constraint detail for the parameter itself, so the baseline 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?

The description states a specific verb+resource ('Follow a write') and enumerates exactly what is returned: live status (pending/completed/failed), progress, and retry delay. No sibling tool in the list deals with async operation tracking, so the agent can immediately place it without opening a schema.

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 rather than stated: 'Follow a write' plus the schema note that operation_id comes from a write tool tells the agent this is the post-write polling endpoint, and 'how long to wait before checking again' hints at the polling loop. However, there is no explicit when-to-use framing, no statement of when to stop polling, and no named alternative.

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

All Cleotic 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