Revly

Hent signeringsstatus fra Revly

hent_signoff_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Henter avgrenset områdesignering, EQCR-, partnergjennomgangs- og beretningsstatus for én eksplisitt oppdrags-ID. Dette er ikke en faglig godkjenning.

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_signoff_status"
  }
}

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.
`eqcr`	No	EQCR status. This is not a professional approval.
`status`	Yes	available, or not_recorded when no signature, review or report exists.
`sources`	No	Sources that contributed to the result.
`evidence`	No
`beretning`	No	Report draft status.
`revly_url`	No	Link to the engagement in Revly.
`truncated`	No	True when the area list was cut short.
`oppdrag_id`	No	Engagement ID, as text.
`operation_id`	Yes	Revly operation ID for this read, recorded in the access log.
`missing_sources`	No	Sources with no record. Missing data stays visible and is never treated as a positive result.
`partnergjennomgang`	No	Partner review summary.
`omraade_signeringer`	No	Area signatures, at most 50 groups.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine semantic context beyond them: results are scoped to one explicit ID and explicitly do NOT constitute a professional sign-off, which prevents misinterpretation of the returned statuses. No mention of return shape, but an output schema exists.

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, zero waste, with the resource and scope front-loaded and the clarifying disclaimer second. Well sized for a single-parameter read tool.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. What is missing is disambiguation from the crowded set of sibling status tools; otherwise an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already carries the meaning, including the pattern and the note that lookups without ID are not permitted. The description reinforces 'én eksplisitt oppdrags-ID' but adds no new syntax or constraint beyond the schema.

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 (Henter) and resource (signeringsstatus) and enumerates the exact status categories returned: områdesignering, EQCR, partnergjennomgang, beretning. It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like hent_avslutningsstatus or hent_oppdrag_tilstand, which an agent must choose between.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Implies the usage condition ('for én eksplisitt oppdrags-ID') and adds the important caveat 'Dette er ikke en faglig godkjenning', which tells the agent not to treat the result as an approval. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus the many other hent_* status tools, so selection still requires inference.

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?