glitch_statusCheck which of the six bounded-autonomy practices are installed in a repository.
Which of the six bounded-autonomy practices are installed in this repository and which are not. Reads only. A step reported as failing usually means the reader has not yet written their own file for it (CLAUDE.md, FLEET.md, FLOOR.md, PLAN.md), which is work, not a bug.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotation 'readOnlyHint: true', the description explicitly says 'Reads only' and explains the meaning of a failing step (not yet written file, not a bug). This adds valuable context about expected behavior and error interpretation, going beyond the annotation's simple flag.
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?
The description is succinct, consisting of two clear sentences. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the additional clarification about failing steps is concisely appended. No unnecessary words or digressions are present.
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 the lack of an output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool reports (which practices are installed and which are not) and interprets the meaning of a failing step. This is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's functionality without further schema details.
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?
The tool has no parameters, so there is nothing to explain. The schema is empty and coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds no parameter-related confusion, and the empty parameter list is self-explanatory.
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 that the tool checks which of the six bounded-autonomy practices are installed in the repository. It uses a specific verb ('are installed') and defines the resource (repository) and scope (the six practices), making the purpose unambiguous even without mentioning sibling tools.
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 provides interpretive guidance ('a step reported as failing usually means the reader has not yet written their own file'), but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over the sibling tools (glitch_check, glitch_ledger_tail). It implies usage for status checks but lacks direct comparison or alternative selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.