cc-agent

get_swarm_status

Poll a swarm's status to get its goal, current phase (running_subs, synthesizing, done, or failed), sub-job counts, and synthesis job ID once available.

Instructions

Poll the status of a swarm created by swarm_task. Returns goal, status (running_subs | synthesizing | done | failed), sub_job counts, and synthesis_job_id once spawned.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "swarm_id": "<swarm_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_swarm_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`swarm_id`	Yes	Swarm ID returned by swarm_task

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.16.15Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It discloses that the tool is a poller (safe to call repeatedly), returns status with enumerated values, sub_job counts, and a synthesis_job_id. It does not mention rate limits or error handling, but as a read-only getter, the behavioral expectations are sufficiently clear.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single sentence that front-loads the primary action and efficiently lists all return fields. There is no redundant or unnecessary information; 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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, input source, and all return fields (goal, status, counts, synthesis_job_id). It could mention potential errors (e.g., invalid swarm_id), but overall it is sufficiently complete for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The schema has 100% coverage with a clear description for swarm_id. The tool description adds that the ID is 'returned by swarm_task,' which provides helpful context but does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema already offers.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Poll the status of a swarm') and the specific resource ('created by swarm_task'). It lists the return fields, including exact status values, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_job_status that operate on individual jobs.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description implies when to use the tool—after creating a swarm with swarm_task—and the polling context. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the reference to the sibling tool swarm_task provides clear context.

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