openGym MCP Bridge

get_status

Checks whether the openGym MCP Bridge can authenticate with openGym and reports the current server revision without returning secrets.

Instructions

Read-only. Check whether the bridge can authenticate with openGym, and report the current server revision. No secrets are returned.

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": "get_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.4.1Oct 27, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does useful work by declaring 'Read-only' and 'No secrets are returned', which sets the safety and output-sensitivity profile. However, it omits failure behavior (what an unauthenticated result looks like) and the precise shape of the returned status/revision.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the 'Read-only' safety signal, with no wasted words. The key constraints (auth check, revision, no secrets) all appear immediately.

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?

For a simple 0-param, no-output-schema tool, the description covers both what it checks and what it returns (auth success and server revision) plus the no-secrets guarantee. Only minor details like error/unauthenticated reporting are missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool takes zero parameters, so there are no semantics to explain; the baseline for a 0-param tool applies. The description correctly signals that no inputs are required by framing it as a pure status check.

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 names a specific action (check bridge authentication with openGym) and a specific output (current server revision), which clearly distinguishes this health-check tool from the data-fetching siblings like fetch, get_summary, and get_workout.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is a diagnostic/connectivity check, but the description never says when to prefer it (e.g., on startup or when other calls fail) or what to do on failure. No alternative is named, though the sibling list makes the distinction reasonably obvious.

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