get_bot_statusCheck a meeting bot's current state to know if it is joining, in waiting room, in meeting, recording, leaving, stopped, denied, or errored.
Current bot status. Values: Joining, InWaitingRoom, InMeeting, Recording, Leaving, Stopped, NotAllowed, Denied, Error, Done.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bot_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. It adds value by listing the exact status values an agent can expect, including error states like 'Error' and 'Denied'. This gives useful behavioral context beyond the annotation without contradicting it.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and then lists the possible values. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or redundant phrasing. It is optimally structured for quick comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a simple read-only status tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides the essential context: what the tool does and what values to expect. It could mention the return format or error handling, but the status list already covers error conditions. The missing parameter explanation is a minor gap, making it nearly complete for its simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The sole parameter bot_id has zero schema description (coverage 0%), and the tool description does not mention it at all. While the parameter name is self-explanatory, the description does not state that bot_id identifies the bot whose status is being retrieved. This is a gap for a single required parameter with no schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns the current bot status and enumerates all possible values (Joining, InWaitingRoom, etc.). This is a specific verb-resource combination (get status) and distinguishes it from get_bot_detail and get_bot_summary, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives. It is unambiguous and informative.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools like get_bot_detail or get_bot_summary. The description simply states what it does, leaving the agent to infer that status is distinct from detail or summary. No exclusions or alternative conditions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.