get_review_router_setup_statusRead structured progress and the next required human action.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| setupId | Yes | Setup-session ID | |
| agentToken | Yes | Secret returned at creation |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, which cover the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying that the tool returns 'structured progress' and 'the next required human action', which is valuable given there is no output schema. This does not contradict the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear sentence that fully conveys the tool's purpose without wasted words. It is front-loaded with the verb and salient detail about what the read returns.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (progress and next human action), which is sufficient for a status-read tool. The two required parameters are well-documented in the schema, and the tool's simplicity does not demand more in the description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters (setupId and agentToken), so the schema already documents their meaning. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, but given the high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Read' to define the action, and specifies the resource as 'structured progress and the next required human action', which clearly indicates a status/read operation. It distinguishes from sibling tools that apply, preview, send, or start the setup, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this tool is used to check progress and next steps after starting a setup, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus the sibling tools. There are no stated exclusions or alternative recommendations, so the usage context is only implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool covers a distinct phase of the setup workflow: start creates an inert plan, preview reads the plan, apply executes it, status reports progress, and send tests the delivery path. No two tools share the same purpose.
All tool names follow the same verb_review_router_setup pattern with clear actions (start, preview, apply, get, send). The consistent structure makes the set easy to navigate.
Five tools is ideal for a focused setup lifecycle—enough to cover the workflow without redundancy or overload.
The setup workflow is fully represented: initiation, planning, application, status tracking, and testing. There are no obvious dead ends or missing operations for the stated purpose.