Check the status of a code review session to see if it is running, completed, or failed. Use this after a review times out to determine whether to wait or retry.
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.
v1.9.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +{}v1.8.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Check whether' implies a read-only operation, and the mention of three states gives the agent a concrete idea of the outcome. However, it does not disclose whether the session status is persisted, if there are any side effects, or what the exact response format is – but for a simple status tool this is reasonably transparent.
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 two sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded ('Check whether a review session is still running...'), and the usage guidance follows naturally. Every word 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?
This is a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, yet the description covers purpose, usage context, and expected outcome states. It does not specify response structure or error cases, but the three-state framing is sufficient for an agent to invoke and interpret the tool correctly. The sibling context further clarifies its role.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and the single parameter is already well defined as 'Session ID to check status of.' The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, 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?
The description uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('review session'), and enumerates the three possible states (running, completed, failed). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like review_code or review_plan, which are action-oriented rather than status queries.
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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'if a review call timed out or you need to verify session state.' This provides clear context without naming alternatives, but the sibling tools are distinct enough that no exclusion is strictly necessary. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use,' but the use cases are well defined.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.