Skip to main content
Glama

get_status

Check current server configuration and operational status for the MCP Vision Server, including AI provider details, active model, and system settings.

Instructions

获取服务器状态

返回当前服务器配置和运行状态信息。


返回内容

  • server_name: 服务器名称

  • provider: AI服务提供商

  • model: 当前使用的模型

  • chat_manager: 对话管理器状态

  • config: 当前配置信息

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • Main handler function for the get_status tool. Returns server configuration and runtime status including server_name, provider, model, chat_manager status, and config details. Decorated with @mcp.tool() which also registers it as an MCP tool.
    @mcp.tool()
    async def get_status() -> dict[str, Any]:
        """
        获取服务器状态
    
        返回当前服务器配置和运行状态信息。
    
        ---
        **返回内容**:
        - `server_name`: 服务器名称
        - `provider`: AI服务提供商
        - `model`: 当前使用的模型
        - `chat_manager`: 对话管理器状态
        - `config`: 当前配置信息
        """
        from .chat_manager import MAX_CONVERSATION_TURNS
    
        vision_config = get_vision_config()
        chat_manager = get_chat_manager()
    
        return {
            "server_name": server_config.name,
            "provider": vision_config.provider,
            "model": vision_config.model,
            "chat_manager": chat_manager.get_status(),
            "config": {
                "max_image_size_mb": vision_config.max_image_size / (1024 * 1024),
                "timeout": vision_config.timeout,
                "temperature": vision_config.temperature,
                "max_tokens": vision_config.max_tokens,
                "max_history": server_config.max_history,
                "persistence_enabled": server_config.enable_persistence,
                "max_conversation_turns": MAX_CONVERSATION_TURNS,
            }
        }
  • Helper method that returns the chat manager's status, including active_sessions, persistence_enabled, history_file, max_history, and max_conversation_turns. Called by the main get_status handler.
    def get_status(self) -> dict[str, Any]:
        """
        获取管理器状态
    
        Returns:
            dict: 状态信息
        """
        server_config = get_server_config()
    
        return {
            "active_sessions": len(self._sessions),
            "persistence_enabled": self._persistence_enabled,
            "history_file": str(self._history_file) if self._history_file else None,
            "max_history": server_config.max_history,
            "max_conversation_turns": MAX_CONVERSATION_TURNS,
        }
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns server status information, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm safety (e.g., non-destructive), rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. The description adds basic context about what information is returned, but lacks depth on behavioral traits beyond the core functionality.

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?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded: it starts with the purpose, then details the return content in a structured list. The use of markdown-like formatting (e.g., '---' and bullet points) enhances readability. However, the inclusion of '返回内容' (return content) details might be redundant if an output schema exists (which it does), slightly reducing efficiency.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, simple read operation) and the presence of an output schema (which should cover return values), the description is reasonably complete. It explains the purpose and outlines return fields, which is sufficient for a status-checking tool. However, it lacks behavioral details like error cases or performance considerations, preventing a perfect score.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool has 0 parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description does not need to compensate for any parameter gaps. It appropriately focuses on the output, listing return fields like server_name, provider, model, etc., which adds value beyond the input schema. This meets the baseline for zero parameters, but does not go above by explaining parameter interactions or constraints (since there are none).

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: '获取服务器状态' (get server status) and elaborates with '返回当前服务器配置和运行状态信息' (returns current server configuration and running status information). This specifies the verb ('get'/'return') and resource ('server status'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools (analyze_image, chat_vision), which serve entirely different purposes, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools or any contextual cues for selection. The only implied usage is to retrieve server status, but there is no explicit when/when-not advice or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage based solely on the purpose statement.

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/LZMW/mcp-vision-server'

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