Skip to main content
Glama

cineflow_status

Inspect system health, ComfyUI backend reachability, active GPU jobs, and project status, with optional project-specific checks.

Instructions

Inspect system health, ComfyUI backend reachability, active GPU jobs, and project status.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "cineflow_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idNoOptional project ID to inspect.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Inspect' implies a read-only probe, but the definition says nothing about whether it makes live network calls to ComfyUI (and how slow that could be), whether results are cached, or what shape the response takes. For a low-risk diagnostic tool this is not dangerous, but it is thin.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with the higher-level checks listed first and nothing redundant. Every clause names a distinct inspection target and no sentence is wasted.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The tool is simple (one optional param, no output schema, flat structure), and the description covers what gets inspected, which is the core need. It still leaves the agent without guidance on when to prefer it over sibling status tools, and without any sense of response format or cost.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single optional project_id parameter, so the schema already documents it fully. The description's mention of 'project status' loosely correlates, but it adds no semantics beyond what the schema states.

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 opens with a specific verb, 'Inspect', and enumerates the concrete resources checked: system health, ComfyUI backend reachability, active GPU jobs, and project status. That makes the tool's scope unmistakable, though it never distinguishes itself from status-adjacent siblings such as cineflow_project_get_state or the various backend *_status tools.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no exclusion criteria. Given that several siblings (cineflow_project_get_state, cineflow_billing_status, cineflow_deepseek_status, cineflow_internal_llm_status) are also status queries, the absence of routing guidance forces the agent to guess which one answers a given question.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.