CNB Remote MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Get NPC task status

npc_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch the real status of a dispatched NPC build task, including overall and per-pipeline status plus the triggering NPC; use build_stage_logs for detailed logs.

Instructions

Get the real status of a dispatched NPC task (build). Returns overall status, per-pipeline status and the NPC that triggered it. Use build_stage_logs for detailed logs.

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": {
      "repo": "<repo>",
      "sn": "<sn>"
    },
    "name": "npc_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`sn`	Yes	Build SN from npc_dispatch
`repo`	Yes	Repository path, e.g. "owner/repo" or "group/subgroup/repo"

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Nov 5, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the return shape (overall status, per-pipeline status, triggering NPC) and implying a live lookup ('real status'), which matters since there is no output schema. It stops short of stating freshness guarantees or whether repeated calls during a running build are expected.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose followed by return contents and then the alternative-tool pointer. Every sentence carries information; only a small amount of tightening is possible.

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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and complete annotations, the description covers purpose, return shape and one sibling routing. The remaining gap is behavioural: nothing tells the agent whether to poll this endpoint while a build runs or what a terminal status looks like.

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 both parameters are documented, including the useful note that sn comes from npc_dispatch. The description adds no format or sourcing detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a specific verb and resource ("Get the real status of a dispatched NPC task") and adds the distinguishing detail that it covers build tasks dispatched via NPC. It also hints at the payload (overall status, per-pipeline status, triggering NPC), so an agent can recognise it. It does not explicitly separate itself from the close sibling build_status, leaving some ambiguity about which status tool answers which question.

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?

"Use build_stage_logs for detailed logs" gives an explicit alternative with the condition that selects it, which is exactly the kind of routing an agent needs. However, no guidance is given for the more dangerous confusion — when to use this versus build_status — and there is no mention of polling or when a status is final.

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