Check status of all bridge resolution workflows for an entity. Shows open, pending, closed, rejected.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "bridge_status"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entity_id | No | Entity ID (optional) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries burden. 'Check' implies a read-only operation, which is safe, and the description lists the statuses shown. However, it does not explicitly state it does not modify data or disclose any limitations or prerequisites beyond what schema already provides. It adds moderate context but not deep behavioral detail.
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?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with verb and resource, no filler. Every word adds value.
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?
For a simple status tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides the purpose, scope, and expected statuses. It is sufficient for invocation, though it lacks explicit return format details, which are not expected for such a tool.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% with entity_id described as optional. Description only adds 'for an entity,' which does not add meaningful semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies since schema covers all parameters.
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?
Description uses specific verb 'check' with resource 'all bridge resolution workflows for an entity' and enumerates output states (open, pending, closed, rejected). This clearly differentiates from sibling action tools like bridge_resolve and bridge_approve.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of use cases, exclusions, or comparison to bridge_report or other status tools. Usage is only implied by the purpose.
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.