Sora Commander

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

request_status

Check a prior command's status by its original request ID without creating a new command, approval, or queue entry; UNKNOWN is inconclusive and never justifies an automatic retry.

Instructions

Read-only lookup by the original caller's request ID.

    No new command, approval, or queue entry is created. UNKNOWN does
    not prove the old request never ran and MUST NOT trigger auto-retry.

Use with the original request_id to check a prior command's status without re-submission. UNKNOWN is inconclusive and must never justify an automatic retry.

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": {
      "request_id": "<request_id>"
    },
    "name": "request_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`request_id`	Yes	REQUIRED original request correlation ID (32 lowercase hex characters); NOT Owner permission.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.2Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it declares the tool is read-only, that no new command, approval, or queue entry is created, and that an UNKNOWN result is inconclusive rather than proof of non-execution. These are exactly the side-effect and interpretation behaviors an agent needs before calling it.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The core statement is front-loaded and the retry warning is prominent. However, the UNKNOWN caveat is stated twice in near-identical wording, which is emphasis rather than new information and slightly inflates the text.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter read tool with an output schema, the definition covers purpose, non-mutation, and result interpretation. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly or to avoid misusing an UNKNOWN result is missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single request_id parameter is fully documented in the schema, including that it is not an Owner permission. The description reinforces that it must be the original correlation ID, but that meaning is already present in the schema field description, so it adds only marginal value.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: a 'read-only lookup by the original caller's request ID.' It also implicitly separates this tool from the command-execution siblings by stating it checks a prior command 'without re-submission', so an agent can tell it apart from run_command or await_command_result.

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 states the use case clearly: call it with the original request_id to check a prior command's status instead of re-submitting. It also gives a concrete exclusionary rule that UNKNOWN must never justify an automatic retry. It stops short of naming a specific alternative sibling tool, which keeps it from a 5.

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