Retrieves read-only status and pending safety events for a human-input operation without resuming or canceling it, so you can inspect progress and safety state.
Readonly operation status and pending safety events. Does not resume or cancel.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| operation_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds that pending safety events are included and reinforces that the tool does not resume or cancel, but it does not explain optional operation_id behavior, result shape, or whether omitting operation_id returns all statuses.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences with no wasted words, and the core readonly/status scope is front-loaded before the non-resume/cancel clarification.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only status tool with clear annotations, the description covers the high-level purpose. However, because there is no output schema and the optional operation_id is undocumented, an agent is left guessing about both the parameter's effect and the exact status/event return structure.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There is one optional operation_id parameter with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it or explains whether omitting it returns all operations. The description therefore provides no meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the bare schema shows.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the specific resource: readonly operation status and pending safety events. It also distinguishes the tool from mutating siblings by saying it does not resume or cancel, though it never names the relevant alternatives such as human_resume or human_stop.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It gives a useful exclusion by stating the tool does not resume or cancel, which implies it is for inspection only. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this instead of human_events, human_capabilities, reading_status, or timer_status.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.