Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
lexware-mcp-server

lexware-mcp-server

by lazyants
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Get File Status

lexware_get_file_status
Read-onlyIdempotent

Check the processing status of an uploaded file in Lexware Office to determine if it's ready for use.

Instructions

Get the processing status of an uploaded file from Lexware. Requires an API key with the file-status scope; keys without it get an access_denied error from Lexware.

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": "lexware_get_file_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesFile UUID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv3.0.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds meaningful behavioral details: authentication scope requirement and the specific access_denied error for insufficient keys. This enriches the agent's understanding of failure modes.

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 with no redundancy. The first sentence states the purpose, the second provides the auth requirement and error outcome. Every word earns its place.

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 simple read-status tool with one parameter, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, and error handling. Annotations cover safety (readOnly, idempotent), and the schema covers parameter format. No significant gaps.

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?

The schema already documents the single parameter 'id' as a 'File UUID' with 100% coverage. The description adds no further parameter meaning, so it relies on the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high coverage.

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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and the specific resource ('processing status of an uploaded file from Lexware'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like lexware_download_file or lexware_upload_file by focusing on status retrieval.

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?

The description provides clear context (checking upload processing status) and includes a crucial prerequisite (API key with file-status scope) with an explicit error outcome. While it doesn't name alternative tools, the purpose is unambiguous enough that an agent can infer when to use it.

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