Get agent status
get_agent_statusReturns whether this agent is paused, expired, or healthy.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
get_agent_statusReturns whether this agent is paused, expired, or healthy.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no further behavioral details (e.g., side effects or error conditions), so it meets the baseline without exceeding it.
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, concise sentence that directly conveys the tool's purpose without any redundant information. It is well-structured and efficient.
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?
Given no parameters, no output schema, and a simple read-only getter, the description fully suffices. It explains exactly what the tool returns, leaving no ambiguity for an agent.
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?
There are no parameters, so the schema fully covers the input contract. The description appropriately omits any parameter details since none exist, making it complete.
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 clearly states the verb 'Returns' and specifies the resource (agent status) with distinct outcomes (paused, expired, healthy), making it instantly clear what the tool does and differentiating it from the sibling get_status.
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_status. It is implied by the specific wording, but there is no direct guidance on choosing this over other status-related tools, especially given the similar sibling get_status.
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 has a distinct purpose: attaching humans, checking transfers, polling approvals, creating checkouts, retrieving statuses, pricing, and trial invites. Even similar tools like get_agent_status and get_status are clearly differentiated by their descriptions.
All tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (attach_human, check_transfer, create_checkout, get_agent_status, get_approval, get_pricing, get_status, start_trial). No mixed conventions or disorganized naming.
Eight tools is a well-scoped set for the Agent Control domain, covering billing, trial, status, human attachment, and transfer approval without being bloated or too sparse.
The tool surface covers the essential lifecycle: attach human, start trial, create checkout, check transfer, poll approvals, and retrieve status/pricing. There are no obvious dead ends given that approvals and billing are human-owned.