Repository Manager

Validate Status

rm_projects_validate_status

Poll the status of a background validation job for Python projects using its job_id and retrieve results once complete.

Instructions

Validate status (rm_projects). Bulk install, build, and validate Python projects.

The 'validate' action submits validation as a background job and returns a job_id immediately. Use 'validate_status' with that job_id to poll progress and retrieve results once complete.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`extra`	No	Install group (e.g. 'all') for 'install'.	all
`job_id`	No	Job ID to check status for 'validate_status' action.
`summary`	No	For 'validate'/'validate_status': return a COMPACT roll-up (counts + failed set + running names) instead of the full per-job dump. Keeps responses inline-returnable at thousands of repos. Set False for the full per-job detail.
`threads`	No	Parallel workers.
`auto_bump`	No	Automatically run phased_bumpversion if validation passes. Begins at the lowest phase that has repository changes (and cascades to every later phase), skipping unchanged upstream phases.
`auto_push`	No	Automatically run phased_push if validation passes. Begins at the lowest phase with unpushed work, skipping the inter-phase waits of unchanged upstream phases.
`bump_part`	No	The part of the version to bump (e.g. minor, patch, major) if auto_bump is used.	minor
`output_dir`	No	Directory to write the validation-reports for 'validate'.
`commit_code`	No	For 'validate': after validation passes and BEFORE the version bump, concurrently stage (git add -A), run pre-commit, and commit feature code across ALL targeted repos. Ensures untracked/new files are committed (not left for the push safety net). The bump then waits on this step. Use with commit_message.
`failed_only`	No	For 'validate': target ONLY repositories whose most-recent validation failed (the remediation loop). Ignored if 'repositories' is given. Forces re-validation of that set.
`repositories`	No	Comma-separated list of specific repositories to target.
`commit_message`	No	Commit message for the commit_code step. Required when commit_code=True.
`generate_report`	No	Generate validation report directory for 'validate'. Default True.
`prune_worktrees`	No	For 'validate' with auto_bump/auto_push: after the release, prune session worktrees already merged into main (and dangling admin pointers). DESTRUCTIVE. Default False — the release still runs the audit and REPORTS the safe_to_prune/do_not_disturb classification under 'worktree_hygiene_job_id' WITHOUT deleting anything. Never touches active/in-flight or orphaned worktrees.
`force_revalidate`	No	If true, bypass validation cache and force re-validation of all projects.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv3.5.1Oct 19, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations are weak (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false) and don't reveal much. The description adds genuine context about asynchronous job semantics (immediate job_id return, polling for results), which helps. But it describes the 'validate' action's behavior rather than disclosing what this status tool itself returns or its own side effects, so it only partly carries the burden.

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?

Two tight paragraphs that front-load the async job_id workflow, which is the key thing an agent needs. The only waste is the redundant title restatement and the family-level 'install, build, and validate' line that doesn't apply here.

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

Completeness3/5

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 needn't be explained, and the async workflow is covered. But the description repeatedly references 'validate'/'validate_status' actions while the schema exposes no action parameter (additionalProperties=false), leaving an agent unsure how the action is selected. That gap keeps it at minimum-viable completeness.

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 all 15 parameters (job_id, summary, threads, etc.) in detail. The description only echoes job_id usage, adding nothing beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when structured data does the heavy lifting.

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 the specific async pattern: 'validate' submits a background job and returns a job_id, while this tool polls progress with that job_id. That cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling rm_projects_validate. However, the opening line 'Bulk install, build, and validate Python projects' describes the whole family rather than this status-only tool, which muddies the header.

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?

It explicitly states the routing condition: use 'validate_status' with the job_id returned by 'validate' to poll until complete. That names the alternative and the trigger. It does not state what to do if no job_id exists yet or when-not to poll, so it falls short of a 5.

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

Deploy Server