Skip to main content
Glama

Omniology

by io.github.omniologynow-rgb

get_onboarding_status

Poll the setup session you started with start_onboarding. Terms, email verification, and the Operator name can be done in chat; the one browser step is a single screen to set a PIN + approve the entry cap. This returns per-step flags (terms_accepted, email_verified, operator_name_set, key_cap_approved), status, and — once complete — the agent_id AUTOMATICALLY (no copy-paste). Poll every few seconds after handing over the deep link.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
session_idYesThe session_id returned by start_onboarding.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses polling cadence, per-step flag results, status output, and that agent_id is returned automatically once complete. It could add a bit more about terminal/error states, but it is substantially transparent for a read-only status poller.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, workflow context, return value semantics, and polling instruction. It is front-loaded with the core action and avoids filler.

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 there is no output schema, the description compensates by naming the exact flags returned, status, and automatic agent_id. It also explains the chat-vs-browser split, which helps the agent interpret the flags. Possible status values and error conditions are omitted, but they are not essential for basic invocation.

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 schema already defines session_id as 'The session_id returned by start_onboarding.' The tool description reinforces that idea with 'setup session you started with start_onboarding' but adds no new parameter-level meaning, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Poll the setup session you started with start_onboarding.' It clearly states this is the status-check companion to start_onboarding and enumerates the returned flags and agent_id, making it easy to distinguish from siblings like get_agent_status or get_vault_status.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives clear usage context: poll after handing over the deep link, every few seconds, and the returned flags indicate which steps remain. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or saying when not to use the tool, but the workflow context is strong enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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

All Omniology toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target a distinct resource/action, and descriptions clarify the get_* cluster (agent status vs balance vs vault vs onboarding vs omega). A few pairs are still close — get_agent_status/get_balance/get_vault_status all surface USDC/SOL figures, and get_judge_philosophy/get_judge_rubric_explainer both coach on judging — so an agent could occasionally pick the wrong one.

Naming Consistency5/5

Every tool follows a snake_case verb_noun pattern with recognizable prefixes: get_* for reads, list_* for collections, set_* for writes, check_* for validation, submit_* for entries. The naming is highly predictable across all 32 tools.

Tool Count2/5

32 tools exceeds the 25+ threshold for a heavy surface. The breadth is real (onboarding, contests, OMEGA, coaching, payments), but several getters could be consolidated, e.g. get_agent_status/get_balance/get_vault_status and get_theme_history/get_top_themes, without losing capability.

Completeness3/5

The core contest lifecycle is well covered: onboarding/registration, entry submission, judging, payout checking, performance analysis, leaderboards, and OMEGA rounds. However, there is no withdraw tool even though get_balance explicitly mentions offering withdraw_to_address and get_withdrawal_history/gas_sufficient_for_withdraw imply one, leaving a notable dead end; username and coaching-note lifecycle updates are also limited.

Resources