Retrieve pipeline lifecycle and gate status without running costly executions. Check PASS/WARN/FAIL/QUARANTINE/NOT_RUN states for DFT-to-MLIP workflows.
Return lifecycle and gate status without expensive execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a meaningful trait — that the call is cheap/non-executing — which is useful for a status check. However, it says nothing about permissions, whether it is purely read-only, or the freshness of the status, so the safety profile remains inferred.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the purpose verb and the key differentiator (no expensive execution) both land immediately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and there are no parameters to document. The remaining gap is scope: siblings run specific pipelines (mace, runner2) while this tool takes no argument, and the description never clarifies which pipeline's status is returned or what 'gate' states mean.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool takes zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to add. Baseline 4 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (Return) and resource (lifecycle and gate status), so an agent knows this is a status read. The phrase 'without expensive execution' begins to separate it from the run_* pipeline siblings, though it never names them. 'Lifecycle' and 'gate' are domain jargon left undefined.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is only implied: by flagging that it avoids 'expensive execution,' the description suggests using this instead of actually running a pipeline to check state. There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no sibling named as the alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.