ipython-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

runtime_status

Inspect the execution environment's current runtime state, covering worker activity, queue lengths, epoch progress, and recovery metadata to identify potential issues.

Instructions

Report bounded out-of-band worker, queue, epoch, and recovery metadata.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "runtime_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Default
`epoch`	Yes
`error`	No
`state`	Yes
`queue_depth`	Yes
`operation_active`	Yes
`latest_namespace_state`	No	unchanged
`latest_interruption_kind`	No
`replacement_startup_seconds`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 17, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only reporting action but does not clarify side effects, required permissions, output behavior, or the meaning of 'bounded out-of-band' metadata.

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?

The description is a single, compact sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action verb and immediately specifies the subject matter, making it easy to scan.

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?

Given the absence of parameters and presence of an output schema, the description provides adequate context for a status-reporting tool. The key gap is the ambiguous 'bounded out-of-band' phrasing, but overall the description is reasonably complete for the tool's simplicity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The input schema already covers everything (empty object, additionalProperties false), earning the baseline score of 4.

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 uses the verb 'Report' with specific resources ('worker, queue, epoch, and recovery metadata'), making the tool's function clear. It is distinguishable from siblings like 'list' or 'execute', though the phrase 'bounded out-of-band' is somewhat jargon-heavy and not fully explained.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or relationships to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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

Deploy Server