Skip to main content
Glama
BurgersJackson

Storywright MCP

by BurgersJackson
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Local

get_chapter_status

Retrieve the current status and details of a specific chapter in the book writing pipeline by providing its chapter number.

Instructions

Inspect one chapter.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chapter_numYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Implementation Reference

  • src/storywright_mcp/workflow.py:497-511 (handler)
    Core implementation: fetches chapter data (title, status, editor verdict, third_pass_completed) and checks for draft/approved manuscript files.
    def get_chapter_status(chapter_num: int) -> str:
    proj, _ = require_project()
    chapter = proj.get_chapter(chapter_num)
    if not chapter:
        return "Chapter not found."
    draft = proj.base_path / "manuscript" / f"chapter-{chapter_num:02d}-draft.md"
    appr = proj.base_path / "manuscript" / f"chapter-{chapter_num:02d}-approved.md"
    return (
        f"## Chapter {chapter_num}: {chapter.title}\n"
        f"- Status: {chapter.status.value}\n"
        f"- Verdict: {chapter.editor_verdict or '—'}\n"
        f"- Third passes done: {chapter.third_pass_completed}\n"
        f"- Draft exists: {draft.exists()}\n"
        f"- Approved exists: {appr.exists()}\n"
    )
  • src/storywright_mcp/app.py:226-232 (registration)
    Registers `get_chapter_status` as an MCP tool via the @mcp.tool() decorator, wrapping the workflow function with error handling.
    @mcp.tool()
async def get_chapter_status(chapter_num: int) -> str:
    """Inspect one chapter."""
    try:
        return workflow.get_chapter_status(chapter_num)
    except ValueError as e:
        return str(e)

Tool Definition Quality

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits, but it does not. It doesn't state whether this is a read-only operation, what happens if the chapter number is invalid, or what output format is expected. The phrase 'Inspect one chapter' implies a safe read, but the agent cannot infer permissions or side effects.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

At three words, the description is maximally concise but underspecified. Conciseness should not come at the cost of completeness; every sentence should earn its place, but this description provides no substantive information beyond what the tool name already conveys. It fails to front-load essential usage or behavioral details.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool has one required parameter, no annotations, and an output schema (which may document return values), the description is still incomplete. It does not explain what 'status' means (e.g., drafted, reviewed, approved) or any prerequisites (e.g., the chapter must exist). The agent cannot safely invoke this tool without additional knowledge.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema defines a single parameter 'chapter_num' with no description, and the tool description does not explain its meaning, format, or constraints (e.g., must be a positive integer, corresponds to a chapter currently in the project). With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds zero value for understanding parameters, leaving the agent to guess.

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?

The description 'Inspect one chapter' is a clear verb+resource pairing, but it fails to distinguish from sibling tools like get_pipeline_status or check_environment, which also inspect aspects of the book project. The name 'get_chapter_status' adds specificity, but the description doesn't reinforce what makes this tool unique.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. For example, it doesn't indicate that it only retrieves status for a single chapter by number, or that other tools like get_project_status or get_pipeline_status might be more appropriate for other contexts. There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or mention of sibling tools.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/BurgersJackson/storywright-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server