Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
rata-mcp

rata-mcp

by fuhidev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

ghm_get_job_status

Retrieves the current status of a job using its job ID as a legacy alias, enabling agents to check task progress and completion.

Instructions

[Legacy v1 alias] Get job status by jobId. Recommend using rata_get_job_status.

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": {
      "job_id": "<job_id>"
    },
    "name": "ghm_get_job_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
job_idYesMã jobId của tác vụ cần kiểm tra

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.0.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the important trait that this is a legacy alias superseded by another endpoint, but it says nothing about what a status response contains, what status values are possible, or how errors (unknown job_id) are surfaced.

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 short sentences with zero waste: the legacy label is front-loaded and the sibling recommendation follows, which is precisely the information priority for an agent choosing among duplicate tools.

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?

For a one-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the definition covers identity, scope and the alternative. The remaining gap is the shape of the returned status, which an agent may need since no output schema exists.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single job_id parameter is documented in the schema, so the description only needs to confirm the lookup key, which "by jobId" does. No additional meaning (format, source of the ID, cross-endpoint compatibility) is added.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb and resource ("Get job status by jobId") and immediately labels the tool as a "Legacy v1 alias", which distinguishes it from the near-identically named sibling rata_get_job_status without opening either schema.

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 explicitly routes the agent to the preferred alternative ("Recommend using rata_get_job_status"), which is exactly the routing guidance needed given the duplicate siblings. It stops short of stating when this alias is still the correct choice (e.g. existing v1 integrations), leaving that inference to the caller.

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