Табуля

files_run_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Returns the execution status of a files_run task by its task_id: 'queued' (accepted, not yet picked up by a worker), 'running', 'succeeded' (the worker executed the cell), or 'failed' (the worker could not run the task — see 'error'). NOTE: 'succeeded' means the worker ran the code; a code-level error (e.g. a Python exception) still reports 'succeeded' here — read the cell with files_read and inspect its 'code_errors' to detect code-level failures. Signature: files_run_status(task_id, file_uuid?).

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": {
      "task_id": "<task_id>"
    },
    "name": "files_run_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`task_id`	Yes	The task id returned by files_run.
`file_uuid`	No	The file the task was started for. When given, a task belonging to another file is reported as not found. Required when connected with a space API token.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`error`	No
`state`	Yes
`task_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 31, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds the non-obvious semantic that 'succeeded' only means the worker executed the code — a Python exception still reports 'succeeded' — which materially changes how an agent interprets results. This is exactly the kind of behavioral disclosure annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then status values, then the critical caveat, then signature. The signature restatement is somewhat redundant given a complete schema, but the rest earns its place.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a simple two-parameter read-only status poller with an output schema present and full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, status semantics, failure modes and the crucial interpretation caveat. Nothing an agent needs to call or interpret it correctly is missing.

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 already documents both task_id and file_uuid (including the space-API-token requirement). The description only restates the signature, adding no format, source, or scoping detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Returns the execution status of a files_run task') plus the keying parameter, clearly distinguishing it from files_run (start), files_run_cancel (cancel) and files_read (read content). An agent can identify the tool without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Implies the workflow: task_id comes from files_run, and when results matter for code-level failures the agent is explicitly routed to files_read to inspect 'code_errors'. There is no explicit 'use when / don't use when' against files_run_cancel or polling cadence, so it falls short of a full 5.

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

All Табуля 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?