Check if a code review session is still running, completed, or failed. Use after a review call times out to verify session state.
Check whether a review session is still running, completed, or failed. Use this if a review call timed out or you need to verify session state.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| session_id | Yes | Session ID to check status of |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.8.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It clearly describes a read-only status check and the possible states, but it does not disclose potential side effects (likely none), error behavior for unknown sessions, or response format. Adequate but not rich.
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 sentences, zero wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded and the usage guidance follows immediately. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
For a simple single-parameter status tool, the description supplies the key usage trigger and the meaning of the state outcomes. It does not describe the return value, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent can call it correctly even without an output schema.
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 schema covers 100% of the single parameter with a clear description: 'Session ID to check status of.' The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('review session') and enumerates the possible outcomes (running, completed, failed). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like review_plan and review_code which clearly perform different actions.
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?
Explicitly gives a concrete usage condition: 'if a review call timed out or you need to verify session state.' It does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls just short of the highest bar.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.