Skip to main content
Glama
kensaurus

Mushi-Mushi

by kensaurus
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Activation cockpit status

activation_status
Read-onlyIdempotent

Check a project's activation posture—SDK heartbeat, reports, GitHub, MCP readiness, QA stories—to pinpoint the blocking onboarding step and get the next best action.

Instructions

Return the unified activation posture — SDK heartbeat, ingested reports, GitHub, MCP readiness, QA stories, and the next best action. Read this before guessing which onboarding step is blocking the user. Also available as the mushi://activation resource for resource-reader clients. Returns { sdkActive, reportsIngested, githubConnected, mcpConnected, qaStoriesCreated, nextBestAction }.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectIdNoProject UUID (defaults to the configured project). (`project_id` is accepted too.)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.1.12
    • addedInput schema / properties / projectId
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Project UUID (defaults to the configured project). (`project_id` is accepted too.)",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • removedInput schema / properties / project_id
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Project UUID (defaults to the configured project).",
-  "type": "string"
-}
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv0.1.10
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  3. Addedv0.1.2

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already signal read-only, idempotent, and open-world hints, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds value beyond the annotations by specifying the exact returned fields and mentioning the equivalent mushi://activation resource. No contradiction with annotations was found.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage cue and exact return shape. The natural-language list and the JSON key list overlap, but they serve different readers (human summary vs exact field names) without unnecessary prose.

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 read-only status tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the return contract, the usage moment, and an alternative protocol. It does not explain edge-state behavior (e.g., what fields look like before activation), but annotations and simplicity make the tool unlikely to cause incorrect invocations.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents projectId as a defaulting optional UUID. The description does not add parameter-level meaning, but the high coverage keeps this at the baseline rather than lower.

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?

The description uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Return the unified activation posture') and enumerates the exact components (SDK heartbeat, ingested reports, GitHub, MCP readiness, QA stories, next best action), so an agent can distinguish this activation-status tool from siblings like get_inventory or get_recent_reports. The 'next best action' phrase also signals what makes this tool unique.

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?

It explicitly instructs when to use the tool: 'Read this before guessing which onboarding step is blocking the user,' which gives a concrete decision point. It also notes an alternative access path (mushi://activation for resource-reader clients), but it does not spell out when to prefer sibling tools over this one.

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