job_status
Return job state, plan hash, and live budget conservation books.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes |
Output Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
agent-hive-orchestrator
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
B3/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It implies a read-only operation but does not explicitly confirm non-destructiveness or other behavioral traits.
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 a single concise sentence that gets straight to the point. It is well front-loaded with the action verb.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple 1-parameter input and presence of an output schema, the description covers the basic return values adequately but misses limitations or format hints.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no details about the 'job_id' parameter beyond its existence. The parameter semantics are underspecified.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it returns job state, plan hash, and budget conservation books. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tool 'audit_job' which may also involve job state.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like 'audit_job' or 'solve'. The description lacks context for decision-making.
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
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct operation: auditing, describing agents, checking job status, listing solvers, solving jobs, and verifying audits. No overlap in purpose.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., audit_job, describe_agent). The naming is clear and predictable.
Tool Count5/5
Six tools is well-scoped for an orchestrator server, covering essential operations without unnecessary bloat or missing core functionality.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface covers agent description, solver listing, job execution, status checking, auditing, and verification. A minor gap is the absence of a tool to list all jobs, but the core lifecycle is complete.