Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Neotoma

Neotoma

by markmhendrickson
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

get_entity_submission_status

Read-only

Check a submitted entity's current JSON snapshot and status by entity ID, with an optional guest token for restricted access.

Instructions

JSON entity snapshot for a submitted entity_id; optional guest_access_token for token-scoped read-back.

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": {
      "entity_id": "<entity_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_entity_submission_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
entity_idYes
guest_access_tokenNoOptional token from submit_entity.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.15.0
  2. Removedv0.14.0
  3. Addedv0.12.1

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'snapshot' and 'read-back'. It adds specific context about token-scoped access without contradicting annotations. No additional behavioral traits disclosed, but sufficient given annotations.

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?

Single sentence with clear structure, front-loading the core action and then specifying the optional parameter. No wasted words.

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 2-parameter tool with annotations, the description covers the purpose and key parameters. However, without an output schema, it lacks details on the return structure or error behavior, leaving minor gaps in completeness.

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 description coverage is 50%: guest_access_token has a description in the schema, entity_id has none. The description mentions both parameters but adds minimal semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no format or constraint details). Adequate but not exceptional.

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?

Clearly states the tool returns a JSON entity snapshot for a submitted entity_id, with optional guest_access_token for token-scoped read-back. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_issue_status or get_relationship_snapshot by focusing on entity submissions.

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?

The description implies usage (for retrieving a submission snapshot) but does not provide explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, nor exclusion criteria. The guest_access_token is mentioned but not explained when it should be used.

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