Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
chatgpt-webui-mcp

chatgpt-webui-mcp

by Microck
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

chatgpt_webui_ask_async_status

Retrieve the current status of a background ChatGPT job by providing the job ID received from the async start call.

Instructions

Get status for a background ask job.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "job_id": "<job_id>"
    },
    "name": "chatgpt_webui_ask_async_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
job_idYesJob id returned by chatgpt_webui_ask_async_start.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.6

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get status' implies a read-only operation, but nothing is disclosed about possible statuses, whether the call blocks, what happens if the job_id is invalid or expired, or whether the result is consumed by calling this endpoint.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple status-check tool, though it could be slightly expanded with usage context without becoming verbose.

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

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. The agent knows it gets a status, but not what statuses to expect, when to call this versus ask_async_result, or how to interpret the response. The schema documents only the input, leaving key runtime behavior unknown.

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 schema description for job_id is clear and references the start tool, providing complete parameter meaning. The tool description adds little beyond the word 'background', but since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb 'Get status' and a specific resource 'background ask job', which clearly conveys the tool's function. It is distinguishable from siblings like ask_async_start and ask_async_result by the word 'status', though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. It implies the agent should call this after starting a job, but it does not say that, nor does it mention when to prefer ask_async_result over status or how polling should behave.

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