evac_statusRead the current or last evacuation run status: running or finished, progress percent, engine messages, errors, and result summary. No changes made.
Status of the current / last evacuation run of this app session: running or finished, percent, last engine message, error, result summary. Read-only. [bulc-mcp rules] EVAC-004 — bulc_knowledge_search ""
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety/idempotency profile is fully covered. The description's useful addition is that it reports on the 'current/last' run of the session, including error and result summary — a behavioral scope note. It does not say what happens before any run exists.
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?
The status enumeration is front-loaded and dense, but the appended rules fragment ('EVAC-004 — bulc_knowledge_search "<id>"') is unexplained and reads as noise or a dangling reference, weakening structure.
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?
Annotations cover safety and idempotency, and the field list describes the return content despite no output schema. What's missing is the when-to-use routing and any clarification of the EVAC-004 rule pointer, which the description raises but does not explain.
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?
No parameters exist, so per the rubric baseline is 4. Nothing is missing on this dimension.
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 resource (evacuation run status) with clear scope: 'of this app session' and enumerates what the status contains (running/finished, percent, last message, error, result summary). It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like evac_get_results or sim_status, but the 'app session' scoping and field list make the target reasonably clear.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus evac_get_results, sim_status, or result_get_state. The trailing '[bulc-mcp rules] EVAC-004 — bulc_knowledge_search "<id>"' fragment reads as a rule pointer without a clear activation condition, leaving the agent to guess the trigger.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.