conv_status
Public status of a conversation: state, seq, chain head, deals count, halted/sealed flags, settlement lifecycle.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| conv | Yes |
wire
by net.csclear
TDQS
C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It implies a read-only operation via 'Public status' but omits details like mutability, authorization requirements, or side effects. No contradiction with annotations since none exist.
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?
The description is a single sentence of moderate length, front-loading the purpose. However, additional details could be added without harming conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite low complexity, the description omits essential context: no return value explanation, no parameter details, and no usage context. With no output schema, the description should cover what is returned.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain the 'conv' parameter (e.g., format, purpose, or example). The agent is left to guess what string value is expected.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns public status of a conversation and lists specific fields (state, seq, chain head, deals count, halted/sealed flags, settlement lifecycle). It differentiates from siblings like deal_status by specifying 'conversation' status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 siblings. For example, it does not contrast with read_conv or other status tools. No mention of prerequisites or conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of the dealing wire (e.g., conv_status vs. deal_status, directory vs. instruments), with no obvious overlap. Descriptions clearly differentiate their purposes.
Naming Consistency4/5
Tool names are mostly snake_case and descriptive, but vary between noun phrases (e.g., 'about', 'montage') and verb phrases (e.g., 'post_axe', 'send_call'). The pattern is not fully uniform but remains clear and readable.
Tool Count5/5
With 18 tools, the server covers documentation, status queries, listing, and actions for a complex protocol. The count is well-scoped, avoiding both excess and insufficiency.
Completeness5/5
The tool surface provides full lifecycle coverage: reading schemas, posting axes, sending envelopes, polling rings, and inspecting deals and conversations. No obvious gaps for the stated purpose of agent-based dealing on the wire.