med-lit-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

get_run_status

Idempotent

Check the status of a staged medical literature review: see progress for every stage and available next steps using its run ID.

Instructions

Show a run's progress in every stage and the available next steps; check it rather than chat history. Reads only (may create the project database).

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": {
      "run_id": "<run_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_run_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`run_id`	Yes	Run ID from start_search

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Sep 29, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, which would look contradictory for a status check, and the description resolves it by disclosing the real side effect: 'Reads only (may create the project database).' That is exactly the kind of behavioral context structured fields alone can't convey. It still omits auth needs, rate limits, and failure behavior, so it is not a 5.

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 compact clauses, progress-tracking purpose front-loaded ahead of the usage directive and the side-effect caveat, with zero filler. Every phrase carries information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers purpose, usage trigger, and the surprising side effect. What remains unaddressed (auth requirements, behavior when run_id is unknown) is minor for a single-parameter read-mostly tool.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already documents run_id's format and origin ('Run ID from start_search'). The description adds nothing beyond the schema, which is the baseline for fully-covered parameters.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: showing a single run's progress across all stages plus available next steps. It is clearly differentiated from list_runs by being about one run's status, though it never names that sibling. Not a tautology and not misleading.

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?

'Check it rather than chat history' gives an explicit when-to-use directive with an alternative named (chat history / prior context). It stops short of routing among sibling tools like list_runs, so no explicit exclusions are stated, but the usage context is clear.

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