Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Pavo 官网 MCP

Pavo 官网 MCP

by congliu1851-ui
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

读取本地操作回执

pavo_get_operation
Read-onlyIdempotent

Check a write operation's receipt to determine SUCCESS (accepted), FAILED (rejected), or RUNNING/UNKNOWN (do not retry). A successful submission does not mean the task is generated.

Instructions

查询本地持久化回执：SUCCESS为写请求回执成功，FAILED为明确拒绝，RUNNING/UNKNOWN不得重投。生成提交SUCCESS不等于任务已生成成功。

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": {
      "operation_id": "<operation_id>"
    },
    "name": "pavo_get_operation"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
operation_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.1

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds real behavior on top: the receipt is local and persisted, each status maps to a definite meaning, RUNNING/UNKNOWN must not be re-submitted, and SUCCESS at submission does not imply task creation succeeded. This retry-safety and semantic caveat is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot carry; only the return-shape detail is left to the output schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three dense clauses, with the core action stated first and the status semantics and retry warning following. No filler, though the telegraphic style and the unexplained acronyms make it slightly harder to parse than a fully structured version would be.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The tool is simple (one required string, read-only) and an output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. The description covers status semantics and retry policy, but it omits the crucial link to the producing tool (where operation_id comes from) and any differentiation from pavo_get_task, which are the main remaining gaps.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and the single parameter operation_id is never mentioned in the description, so nothing explains what an operation id is or where the agent obtains one (presumably from pavo_submit_task). The description must compensate for the missing schema documentation, but it does not.

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 names a specific verb and resource combination: querying a locally persisted receipt for an operation, and it defines what each status value means. However, it never distinguishes this tool from siblings such as pavo_get_task or pavo_sync_task_result, which an agent could easily confuse with it when deciding whether to read the operation receipt or the task state.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the RUNNING/UNKNOWN no-retry rule and the warning that 'submission SUCCESS != task generated' hint that this tool checks write acceptance and that pavo_get_task should follow. But there is no explicit 'use this when X, use pavo_get_task when Y', so the agent must infer the routing.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools