renforge_launch_statusCheck a Ren'Py background launch and return its status—starting, ready, failed, or idle—so agents know when to proceed or handle errors.
Return starting, ready, failed, or idle for a background launch.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_path | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does reveal that the operation is asynchronous ('background launch') and lists the four possible states, which is useful, but says nothing about which launch is being tracked, whether polling is required, or any auth/rate-limit behavior.
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 zero filler; it leads with the action (Return) and immediately enumerates the possible outcomes. Nothing needs trimming.
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 the state values need not be re-explained, and there is only one self-evident parameter. However, the description omits the crucial linkage between this tool and renforge_launch (which launch is being queried, whether polling is expected), leaving a real gap for an agent orchestrating an async launch.
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 0% and the description adds no information about project_path — not its format, whether it must match the path passed to renforge_launch, or whether an empty value targets the default project. The parameter is only self-explanatory by its name.
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 (launch status for a background launch), and enumerates the concrete result states ('starting, ready, failed, or idle'). It implicitly separates itself from renforge_launch, though it never names the sibling or explicitly says it reports on a launch initiated elsewhere.
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?
The phrase 'for a background launch' implies this is a polling companion to renforge_launch, but the description never states when to call it, how often to poll, or what to do with each state. No alternatives or exclusions are offered; usage is only inferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.