Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
colmena-mcp

colmena-mcp

by jdsalasca
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

status

Check the current state of a job using its job_id to monitor delegated coding tasks and track progress.

Instructions

Estado de un job.

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": "status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
job_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.2/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

No annotations and no output schema, so the description carries the full burden – and it says nothing about whether this polls, blocks, returns terminal states, or what an unknown/expired job_id yields. Four words cannot satisfy that burden.

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?

Extremely short and front-loaded; nothing is wasted. It loses a point only because the brevity is under-specification rather than disciplined compression.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

A single-param tool is simple, but with no annotations, no output schema, no parameter docs, and no sibling differentiation, the definition leaves everything an agent needs unanswered – especially the distinction from 'result' and 'wait'.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is 0% and the single parameter 'job_id' has no description anywhere. The description mentions 'un job' but adds no format, origin, or validity information for job_id.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description states the resource ('job') and the returned concept ('estado'), so the purpose is discernible. But it names no specific verb beyond the implicit 'get', and gives no differentiation from siblings like result, wait, or list. Adequate but vague.

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 at all on when to use this versus 'result' (get job output) or 'wait' (block until completion). With 17 siblings and several job-related ones, the absence of any routing guidance is a real gap.

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