Jiji MCP

jiji_message_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check a prepared marketplace message's local approval or send status by ID. Confirms whether it is ready without approving or sending it.

Instructions

Check a prepared message’s local approval/send status. Does not approve or send it.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "jiji_message_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.3Oct 29, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the useful qualifier that the status is 'local' and that no approval/send side effect occurs, but says nothing about freshness, error behavior for unknown ids, or what the status values mean.

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, front-loaded sentences with no waste; the core purpose comes first and the scope-limiting clause second.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The remaining gap is modest: the description does not disambiguate which id namespace this status applies to relative to the similar jiji_action_status tool.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single 'id' parameter, so the description must carry the meaning. Saying 'a prepared message's ... status' implicitly maps the id to a prepared message, but it never states that the id is a message UUID rather than an action or listing id — a real ambiguity given the sibling tools jiji_action_status and jiji_prepare_action.

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?

States a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('a prepared message's local approval/send status'), and the second sentence distinguishes it from the mutating siblings jiji_prepare_message and jiji_prepare_action. It does not, however, explicitly contrast with jiji_action_status, which sounds very similar.

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?

The negative clause 'Does not approve or send it' implies this is a read-only inspection step before a separate approval/send call, but no sibling is named as the alternative and no precondition is given for when checking status is warranted.

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