Skip to main content
Glama
beaglesecurity

Beagle Security MCP Server

Official

beagle_get_test_status

Check the current status of a running security test to monitor progress and determine when results are available.

Instructions

Get the status of a running test

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
applicationTokenYesApplication token
resultTokenYesResult token from test start

Implementation Reference

  • Handler function that executes the beagle_get_test_status logic by making an API request.
    private async getTestStatus(args: any) {
      const result = await this.makeRequest(
        `/test/status?application_token=${args.applicationToken}&result_token=${args.resultToken}`
      );
    
      return {
        content: [
          {
            type: "text",
            text: `Test status:\n${JSON.stringify(result, null, 2)}`,
          },
        ],
      };
  • Tool definition and input schema for beagle_get_test_status.
    {
      name: "beagle_get_test_status",
      description: "Get the status of a running test",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          applicationToken: { type: "string", description: "Application token" },
          resultToken: { type: "string", description: "Result token from test start" },
        },
        required: ["applicationToken", "resultToken"],
      },
  • src/index.ts:314-315 (registration)
    Registration of the tool call within the request handler switch statement.
    case "beagle_get_test_status":
      return await this.getTestStatus(args);
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it gets status, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't cover aspects like authentication needs (implied by 'applicationToken'), rate limits, error conditions, or what the status output entails (e.g., pending, running, completed).

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the core action ('Get the status').

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (a read operation with 2 required parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the status output looks like, error handling, or how it fits into the broader test workflow with siblings like 'beagle_start_test'.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('applicationToken' and 'resultToken'). The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how to obtain these tokens or their relationship to test status.

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?

The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('status of a running test'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'beagle_get_test_result' or 'beagle_list_running_tests', which might have overlapping functionality.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a started test), exclusions, or how it differs from similar tools like 'beagle_get_test_result' or 'beagle_list_running_tests'.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/beaglesecurity/beagle-security-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server