Retrieve current status of an orchestrated mission using its mission ID. Get progress, validation, and recovery information for goal-driven development workflows.
Mission control status for a mission.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| repo | No | ||
| mission_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The word 'status' hints at a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state side effects, permissions, prerequisites, or any operational behavior beyond the vague notion of status.
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?
The description is a single sentence with no padding, so it is concise and front-loaded. However, it is under-specified to the point of being barely informative, missing a verb and any operational detail.
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?
The output schema covers return values, but with a 0% parameter coverage, no annotations, and no guidance differentiating this tool from many similar mission tools, the description is not complete enough for an agent to confidently select and invoke it. Key semantic gaps remain around what 'status' means and how this tool relates to mission_readiness, mission_events, or mission_list.
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 does not mention either parameter, mission_id or repo. Even the phrase 'for a mission' only weakly implies a mission identifier and provides no meaning for the optional repo parameter or the required mission_id.
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 is essentially a noun phrase, 'Mission control status for a mission,' which largely restates the tool name without specifying an action such as retrieving, returning, or querying status. It also does not distinguish this tool from closely related siblings like mission_readiness, mission_events, or mission_list.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus any of the 18 sibling tools. The description gives no context about expected use cases, alternatives, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess whether 'status' means health, progress, readiness, or something else.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.