workflow_statusTrack your statistical analysis progress: see which of the six workflow steps are complete and review saved results ready for your report.
Shows the current analysis, which of the six steps are done, and the saved results (for the report).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds what information is surfaced (step completion, saved results), which is useful, but does not describe the shape of those results or any caveats, which matters because there is no output schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
It is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted clauses, and it leads with the core capability. The parenthetical '(for the report)' is slightly ambiguous but does not hurt readability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a no-parameter, read-only status tool with no output schema, the description should define the return contents more concretely. It names the categories (analysis, six steps, saved results) but not what a saved result contains or how step statuses are represented, leaving the agent to infer the return shape.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
This tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameters whose meaning the description needs to clarify.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb ('Shows') and the exact content returned: current analysis, the six-step completion state, and saved results. This clearly distinguishes it from action-oriented siblings like run_test or start_analysis, though it does not explicitly contrast with job_status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is only implied by the name and the phrase 'current analysis'; there is no explicit guidance on when to call it (e.g., between steps, before build_report) or when to prefer job_status. No alternatives or exclusions are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.