Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Clanker

Clanker

by kckylechen1
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Cheap status of a Clanker run

clanker_status
Read-onlyIdempotent

Check the status of a background run, including plan progress, tool calls, and stall detection, without waiting.

Instructions

Return {status, plan (checkbox counts + current step), tool_calls, last_event_age_ms, suspected_stall}. Does not wait. suspected_stall flags a running turn silent past the stall threshold.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "clanker_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesRun id

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already show readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. Description adds valuable behavioral context: non-blocking nature, stall detection field (suspected_stall), and that it returns current plan and tool_calls. No contradictions.

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 sentences, no unnecessary words. First sentence clearly lists return fields. Second sentence clarifies behavior. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, description is complete: explains return structure, non-blocking nature, stall detection. Could mention it is a lightweight check without side effects, but overall sufficient.

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?

Single parameter 'id' with schema description 'Run id'. Schema coverage is 100%, so description does not need to add much. The tool description does not elaborate on the parameter beyond what schema provides, which is acceptable but not additive.

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

Purpose5/5

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

Description clearly states what the tool does: returns a specific set of fields including status, plan, tool_calls, last_event_age_ms, suspected_stall. Distinguishes from sibling like clanker_wait by explicitly saying 'Does not wait.'

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Implied usage: use for quick status check without waiting. But no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use or alternative references (e.g., 'Use clanker_wait to block until completion'). Only 'Does not wait' hints at distinction.

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