Mostly Right

Read source inspection status

get_source_inspection

Read-onlyIdempotent

Reads one source inspection by session_id and probe_id, waiting up to wait_seconds (default 20) for a queued inspection to settle. Returns bounded evidence with status queued, complete, truncated or failed. A worker can take a few minutes to start, so while it is queued, call again with the same ids without asking the person; an inspection that will never run reads as failed. After about 10 minutes still queued, stop and tell the person it never started. A missing legacy endpoint is reported as capability unavailable and is not emulated. An inspection started with archive_members returns archive_members (the member names, trimmed from the end when long; members_omitted reports how many were dropped), archive_member_count and archive_directory_truncated: build an archive.zip recipe with one of the listed names as its member.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "session_id": "<session_id>",
      "probe_id": "<probe_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_source_inspection"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`probe_id`	Yes
`session_id`	Yes
`wait_seconds`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 15, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / wait_seconds
```
Added value: +{
+  "maximum": 20,
+  "minimum": 1,
+  "type": "integer"
+}
```
AddedSep 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description goes well beyond them: bounded wait with a 20s default, the four terminal statuses, the long-start delay caveat, the capability-unavailable case for missing legacy endpoints, and the exact archive_members payload fields. That is precisely the context an agent needs to avoid premature failure reporting.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and wait semantics before edge cases, and nearly every sentence carries operational value. Some sentences are long and the archive_members clause is dense, but nothing is redundant.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating status values and describing the archive_members/member_count/truncation return shape and how to use it. For a polling read with a legacy-endpoint fallback, this is complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load; it explains wait_seconds semantics and its default value (20), which the schema does not state. session_id and probe_id are only restated as identifiers with no further constraints, leaving that gap.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Reads one source inspection') and immediately scopes it by the two required identifiers. It is clearly distinguishable from start_source_inspection and get_source_probe in the sibling list, and the polling semantics make its role unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit when-to-act guidance: while queued, call again with the same ids without asking the person; after ~10 minutes still queued, stop and report it never started; a never-running inspection reads as failed. This is a full operating policy, not just context.

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

All Mostly Right tools Inspect

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

Need Help?