Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
gametrans

gametrans

by Drhushi
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

agent_status

Read-only

Check the pending queue status to see how many tasks are waiting and how many are answered but not yet received.

Instructions

看挂单队列现状：几条在等、几条已答未收

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "agent_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectNo游戏项目根目录（默认当前目录）
workdirNo工作区目录，默认 <项目>/.gametrans

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.1

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds what is surfaced (counts of waiting vs. answered-but-uncollected), which is useful, but says nothing about return shape, scope, or whether the queue is global vs. per-project.

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?

A single compact clause with zero padding, and the key output content (waiting / answered-uncollected counts) is front-loaded. It is arguably spare given that no other aspect is addressed, but every word earns its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple read-only status tool with two optional params and no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the agent gets back (the two queue counts). No mutation, auth, or rate-limit concerns need addressing given the read-only annotations.

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 description coverage is 100% with only two optional parameters (project, workdir), so the schema already carries full parameter meaning. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what is documented. Baseline 3 applies.

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 names a concrete verb (看/view) and a concrete resource (挂单队列, the pending-order queue), and specifies what it reports: how many are waiting and how many were answered but not yet collected. It is clearly distinct from agent_next and agent_submit, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of sibling tools such as agent_next or agent_submit. The description only states what the tool reports, leaving the agent to infer that it is for inspecting (rather than advancing) queue state.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools