Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Nass MCP

Nass MCP

by Mosabomer2000
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

nass_job_status

Check a transcription job's queued, running, completed, or failed status and view the fallback attempt ledger.

Instructions

Get queued/running/completed/failed status and the precise fallback attempt ledger.

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": "nass_job_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
job_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.1

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Get' implies a read-only lookup and the text discloses the returned state values and an attempt ledger, which is real behavioral content. However, it says nothing about polling cadence, behavior for an unknown/expired job_id, or retention of completed jobs.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core purpose and return shape come first. It is efficient, though the extreme terseness is what leaves the gaps above.

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?

For a simple single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what is returned (status states plus ledger). It falls short on the one thing the schema cannot supply: where job_id comes from and how this fits the job lifecycle.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% and the single required job_id parameter is undocumented in both schema and description. The description never explains that job_id is the identifier returned by the transcription-start tools, leaving an agent to infer it.

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) and resource (job status) and enumerates the exact state space (queued/running/completed/failed) plus a 'fallback attempt ledger'. That is enough to distinguish it from transcript/audio siblings, though it never says 'job' explicitly enough to tie it to a transcription job.

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 when-to-use guidance and no alternatives are named. It does not say to call this after nass_start_transcription/nass_start_local_file, nor whether to poll it, nor what to do instead when the job is already done.

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