netrun_statusCheck a project's live status, public URL, and any blockers. If the last publish failed, it shows the failing stage, reason, and error output.
Current state of one project: is it running, its URL, what blocks it, and — if the last publish failed — why (stage, reason, stderr tail).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful context beyond the annotation: it discloses that the tool surfaces potentially sensitive diagnostics (what blocks a project and a failed publish's stderr tail), which is valuable for an agent weighing the call. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence: the core purpose ('Current state of one project') comes first, followed by a tight list of the four things the agent gets. Every clause earns its place; there is no filler or redundancy.
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 simple one-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers what the call returns and its scope. The main gaps are minor: no pointer to where project_id comes from and 'what blocks it' is not expanded. Overall, an agent has what it needs to call this tool correctly.
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%, so the description must compensate. It anchors project_id to a publishable project entity via 'one project' and 'the last publish,' adding some meaning beyond the bare integer schema. However, it doesn't explain how to obtain a valid project_id (e.g., from netrun_list_projects) or clarify what 'blocks' means, so compensation is partial.
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 states a specific query ('Current state of one project') and enumerates exactly what the agent receives: running status, URL, blockers, and publish-failure diagnostics (stage, reason, stderr tail). The 'one project' scope clearly distinguishes it from sibling netrun_list_projects, and the status-vs-logs/content framing separates it from netrun_logs and the mutating netrun_control/netrun_publish.
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?
The 'one project' phrasing implies the tool is for single-project status checks, which indirectly differentiates it from netrun_list_projects, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no named alternatives, and no exclusions. An agent must infer when this is preferable to netrun_logs or list_projects.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.