Skip to main content
Glama
MichengLiang

loommux

by MichengLiang
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

status

Check the current IPython workspace, kernel status, and execution counts to confirm whether the kernel is running or busy.

Instructions

返回 workspace、kernel 与最近执行记录的观察状态。

状态范围

返回当前 IPython 工作台启动时解析的 workspace、其 workspace_resolution 来源 类别、Python 解释器、kernel PID、kernel 是否已启动，以及 kernel 是否 正忙。workspace_resolution 只能是 launch_cwd 或 explicit_config；它不公开 resolver 的路径或内容，也不公开 kernel session 的 private runtime root。忙碌时 current_execution 是正在 运行的正整数执行编号；空闲时 recent_execution 是最近一次被接受的 执行编号。kernel-local execution count 只用于诊断，不能用来选择 loommux execution。

.. code-block:: text

可见标签 In [N]
        =
loommux execution N
        !=
IPython kernel-local execution_count

IPython 通过原生 ZMQ 协议连接，拥有完整能力。

Returns: 当前 IPython 工作台与 kernel 的状态快照。

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.1.13

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It is unusually explicit about what the tool does not expose (resolver path/content, private runtime root) and that execution counts are diagnostic-only, which gives users a clear behavioral boundary.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is organized with headings and a code block, but it repeats the same summary sentence ('Returns workspace, kernel, and recent execution status') multiple times. Some redundancy makes it slightly less concise than necessary.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies substantial detail about return fields, including enum values for workspace_resolution, busy/idle semantics, and the meaning of execution IDs. It is not perfectly precise about JSON structure but is sufficiently complete for a status tool.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline score applies. There are no parameter semantics to explain beyond the empty schema, and the description does not need to add more.

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 returns workspace, kernel, and recent execution status, using a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling execution_status tool, but the detailed field list makes its purpose evident.

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 does not say when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as execution_status or read_output. It provides no usage context, prerequisites, or when-not-to-use guidance.

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