Revly

Hent oppdragsstatus fra Revly

hent_oppdrag_tilstand

Read-onlyIdempotent

Henter avgrenset oppdragsstatus og statusantall for én eksplisitt oppdrags-ID. Fritekst, klientmeldinger og jobbinnhold er utelatt.

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": {
      "oppdrag_id": "<oppdrag_id>"
    },
    "name": "hent_oppdrag_tilstand"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`oppdrag_id`	Yes	Eksplisitt oppdrags-ID fra Revly. Oppslag uten ID er ikke tillatt.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`aar`	No	Engagement year.
`fase`	No	Engagement phase.
`klient`	No	Client for this engagement.
`status`	Yes	available for a visible engagement.
`sources`	No	Sources that contributed to the result.
`activity`	No	Bounded status counts. No free text or job content.
`budsjett`	No	Budget and phase reservations. Null when nothing is registered. Missing figures are null, never a fake 0.
`evidence`	No
`revly_url`	No	Link to the engagement in Revly.
`truncated`	No	True when the result was cut short.
`oppdrag_id`	No	Engagement ID, as text.
`operation_id`	Yes	Revly operation ID for this read, recorded in the access log.
`oppdrag_status`	No	Engagement status.
`missing_sources`	No	Sources with no record. Missing data stays visible and is never treated as a positive result.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context by disclosing data minimization: free text, client messages and job content are deliberately excluded from the response, which tells the agent not to expect narrative detail.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences with zero filler; the scope constraint and the data-omission caveat are both front-loaded before any invocation attempt. Nothing repeated and nothing wasted.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With one fully documented parameter and an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values, and the omission note covers expectations well. However, in a family of twelve oppdrag-related tools, the absence of any routing signal to finn_oppdrag or hent_avslutningsstatus leaves a real gap for tool selection.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter is fully documented including its numeric pattern and the rule that lookup without an ID is disallowed. The description restates the 'one explicit ID' constraint but adds no syntax or sourcing detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Henter ... oppdragsstatus') and pins the scope to one explicit oppdrag-ID, plus names the fields returned (status og statusantall). It does not differentiate itself from siblings like hent_avslutningsstatus or finn_oppdrag, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of any of the 11 sibling tools. An agent cannot tell from the description whether this should be preferred over hent_avslutningsstatus for closure data or over finn_oppdrag when it only has a name rather than an ID.

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

All Revly 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?