Check the status of a completion request by its ID to see if it is pending, completed, or failed.
Look up the status of a completion request by id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| request_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals only that this is a lookup; it does not say whether the call polls, blocks, returns immediately, errors on unknown ids, or requires authentication. With zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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?
A single sentence with zero filler, and the verb and object are front-loaded. Nothing extraneous is included.
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 status-checking tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain the polling workflow and the provenance of request_id. It does neither, so an agent cannot tell whether to call once or repeatedly, or what the response will contain.
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?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. 'by id' confirms that request_id is the identifier of the completion request, adding a small amount of meaning beyond the bare schema; however, it does not say where the id comes from or what format it takes.
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 a specific verb ('look up'), a resource ('status of a completion request'), and the key ('by id'), making the action unambiguous. It is clearly distinct from siblings that list models or create completions, though it never names them explicitly.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool, such as after invoking glama_chat_completion or glama_stream_completion, nor is there any mention of the async request lifecycle. The sibling names imply the workflow, but the description leaves it entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.