Check an item's quality pipeline position, the next gate, and its instruction. Unrun gates show as '?', indicating coverage gaps rather than passes.
Where an item stands in its quality pipeline, which gate is next, and the instruction for that gate. Gates marked '?' did not run — that is a coverage gap, never a pass.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Item id. |
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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add an important interpretation rule: gates marked '?' did not run and are a coverage gap, never a pass. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, mention prerequisites, or describe error/edge-case behavior, leaving some ambiguity.
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 two short sentences with no redundancy. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the '?' clarification earns its place by preventing a dangerous misinterpretation.
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 low-complexity tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains the returned information and includes a key edge-case caveat. It could mention what happens when no gates remain or an item is not found, but those are minor gaps.
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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the single 'id' parameter. The description does not add additional meaning to the 'id' parameter beyond what is already present, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly identifies the resource (an item's quality pipeline) and the output: current position, next gate, and gate instruction. It uses 'Where an item stands' rather than an explicit verb, and does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like ddflow_status or ddflow_next, so it falls just 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?
Usage is implied: call this tool to see an item's current gate status and what gate comes next. However, there is no explicit statement about when to prefer this over sibling tools such as ddflow_status, ddflow_progress, or ddflow_next, and no alternatives are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.