origingrid_search_session_statusGet the current status of a search session. Returns query, depth, completed/total groups, progress percentage, and timestamps. [ASRP: Use to check session progress between execute calls.]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| session_id | Yes | Session ID from origingrid_search_session_create |
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation ('Get'), but does not explicitly state idempotency, side effects, or rate limits. The description of return fields adds some transparency but insufficient for a mutation-free status check.
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 plus a bracketed usage hint. Front-loaded with purpose, no redundant or unnecessary information.
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 annotations or output schema, the description adequately lists the return fields and usage context. It lacks detail on error handling or session validity, but for a simple status-query tool it is reasonably complete.
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 description coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'session_id', with a clear description in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline but does not add extra value.
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 'Get the current status of a search session' with a specific verb and resource, and lists return fields. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_session_create and search_session_execute by focusing solely on status retrieval.
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 includes '[ASRP: Use to check session progress between execute calls.]', providing explicit context on when to use the tool. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternatives, but the guidance is clear enough for its purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.