Check the status of landing-queue entries. Bounced or parked results include conflict files and exact fix instructions, so you can rebase in your worktree and enqueue again.
Status of land-queue entries. Bounce/park results carry conflict files and exact instructions — a bounced entry means YOU rebase and fix in your worktree, then enqueue again.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entry_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full load, and it does disclose real behavior: bounce/park outcomes include conflict files and instructions, and the agent is expected to rebase and re-enqueue. However, it omits whether the call is read-only, what a non-bounce result looks like, and what happens when no entry_id is supplied.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the actionable detail about bounced results. The second sentence runs long but every clause carries operational meaning, so little is wasted.
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?
For a one-parameter, read-style tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the failure path well but leaves the normal return shape and the entry_id scoping behavior undefined. It is adequate but 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 0% and the single optional parameter 'entry_id' is never mentioned in the description. The crucial ambiguity — whether omitting entry_id returns all entries or fails — is left entirely unresolved.
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?
The description identifies the resource precisely — 'land-queue entries' status — which an agent can distinguish from general siblings like 'status' or 'report_intent'. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the closely-named 'check' or 'claim', so it stops short of a 5.
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 statement of when to call this versus 'check', 'status', or 'enqueue_land'. The only guidance is post-hoc: what the agent should do after receiving a bounced result, which is workflow advice rather than tool selection advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.