get_script_run_statusRetrieve per-profile status of a script run by its run ID to monitor progress or completion across browser profiles.
Retrieves per-profile status of a previously started script run.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | Identifier of the run to query, as returned by RunCookieRobot. | |
| workspaceId | No | Workspace identifier. -1 means the default workspace. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description says the tool "Retrieves" status, which is unambiguously a read operation, while the annotations declare readOnlyHint=false. This is a direct semantic conflict on the read/write axis and warrants the annotation-contradiction flag. No other behavioral context (polling behavior, what happens on an unknown run ID, auth needs) is provided.
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?
It is a single short sentence with no filler, so it is not bloated. But it duplicates the title verbatim, meaning the sentence does not earn its place by adding information; concision here reflects under-specification rather than discipline.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description is the only place an agent could learn what "per-profile status" returns (per-profile objects, state fields, terminal vs running states) and it says nothing. For a status-query tool with no return documentation and no usage guidance, the definition is incomplete.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%: the body UUID and workspaceId (with -1 default meaning default workspace) are both fully documented in the schema, including the pointer back to RunCookieRobot. The description adds nothing about parameters, but with full schema coverage the baseline of 3 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?
Tautological: description restates name/title.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. The phrase "previously started script run" weakly implies this is a polling tool that requires a run created by run_cookie_robot, but the agent must infer that. No guidance on polling cadence or terminal states.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.