Skip to main content
Glama
IEZhu

Agents-Core

by IEZhu
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Read cooperation request status

cooperation_request_status
Idempotent

Check the delivery state and declared processing outcome of a private cooperation request; only the sender or recipient can inspect progress, deadline, and response reference.

Instructions

Read one private request's current delivery and declared processing outcome.

A completed request does not validate work, accept an artifact or grant consent.
Deadline expiry changes metadata only, never stops execution. Schema:
agents-core://cooperation/schema.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
requestYesClosed agents-core/cooperation/1 request-status object or raw JSON. Required protocol, repository_id, participant_id, capability, message_id. Optional subject_id (direct parent relay only). Only the sender or recipient can inspect a tracked request. Returns delivery separately from state/revision, deadline and response reference; materializes overdue expiry. Maximum 32768 UTF-8 bytes; no unknown fields or duplicate keys.
workspaceNoAbsolute path of your working directory, the project this session works in. Pass it whenever you have one: one server can serve several sessions.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv26.10.16

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Adds real semantic context beyond the annotations: a completed request 'does not validate work, accept an artifact or grant consent', and deadline expiry 'changes metadata only, never stops execution'. This explains the semantics that would otherwise be misread from a 'completed' or 'expired' state. It does not, however, explain the unusual readOnlyHint=false (the implicit metadata materialization) in so many words.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence, then layers the two important caveats and the schema pointer. Nothing is wasted, though the trailing 'Schema: agents-core://cooperation/schema' line is slightly dangling.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description supplies the needed semantic caveats plus a schema reference for an object with nested fields. Adequate for a status-read tool; only the absence of sibling routing keeps it from a 5.

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%, so the schema already documents both the request object and workspace. The description adds little parameter detail, only pointing at an external schema URI ('agents-core://cooperation/schema'), which is a useful pointer but not added semantic depth. 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?

States a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('one private request's current delivery and declared processing outcome'), clearly distinguishing this status-read from the mutating sibling cooperation_request_update. It does not explicitly name the sibling alternatives (cooperation_read, cooperation_wait), so it stops short of a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by the resource ('one private request's status'), and the schema notes only the sender or recipient may inspect it, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use versus cooperation_read, cooperation_receive or cooperation_wait. No exclusions or routing guidance are provided.

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