carmaker-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Parameter study progress and results

cm_study_status

Read-only

State of a study (running, done, cancelled, failed) and one row per finished run, which also maps every label to its result file. To wait for progress use cm_study_wait.

Instructions

State of a study (running, done, cancelled, failed) and one row per finished run, which also maps every label to its result file. To wait for progress use cm_study_wait.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`study`	No	Study id (default: the latest)
`detail`	No	compact: per run its label, end status, time, distance, result file and min / max / mean / last of the quantities. full: also every run's keys and workspace values and all statistics	compact

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.2.0Oct 12, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / detail

Added value: +{
+  "default": "compact",
+  "description": "compact: per run its label, end status, time, distance, result file and min / max / mean / last of the quantities. full: also every run's keys and workspace values and all statistics",
+  "enum": [
+    "compact",
+    "full"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

First observedv0.1.0Oct 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the returned state vocabulary and implies a non-blocking call by contrast with the wait tool, but it discloses nothing about permissions or result-file availability nuances. Useful context, but not rich beyond annotations.

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 sentences with zero waste: the core purpose is front-loaded, followed immediately by the routing hint to the sibling tool. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile; the description still states the state values and row structure. It omits the default-to-latest-study behavior, but the schema covers that. Nearly complete for a two-parameter read 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 coverage is 100%, so both the study id (default: latest) and the compact/full detail enum are fully documented in the schema. The description characterizes the compact row contents but does not add format or meaning beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the resource (a study), enumerates the state values it reports (running, done, cancelled, failed), and describes the per-run output including the label-to-result-file mapping. That is specific enough to distinguish it from cm_study_wait, which it explicitly routes away to. The only weakness is the noun-phrase opening with no explicit action verb.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives an explicit alternative with a condition: 'To wait for progress use cm_study_wait.' That cleanly separates this immediate status check from the blocking wait tool. It stops short of a full when/when-not statement (e.g. relation to cm_status for non-study state), so not a 5.

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