Skip to main content
Glama

get_review_status

Check review completion status for assigned papers in OpenReview conferences. Specify venue ID and role to monitor reviewer progress.

Instructions

Check review completion status for all your assigned papers.

Args: venue_id: The venue identifier. role: Your role — 'reviewer', 'area_chair', or 'senior_area_chair'. Default: 'area_chair'.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
venue_idYes
roleNoarea_chair

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Implementation Reference

  • The get_review_status function retrieves and formats the review status for papers assigned to the user within a specific venue.
    async def get_review_status(venue_id: str, role: str = "area_chair") -> str:
        """Check review completion status for all your assigned papers.
    
        Args:
            venue_id: The venue identifier.
            role: Your role — 'reviewer', 'area_chair', or 'senior_area_chair'. Default: 'area_chair'.
        """
        client = get_client()
        profile_id = client.profile.id
        group_name = ROLE_MAP.get(role)
        if not group_name:
            return f"Unknown role '{role}'."
    
        my_edges = client.get_all_edges(
            invitation=f"{venue_id}/{group_name}/-/Assignment",
            tail=profile_id,
        )
        if not my_edges:
            return f"No papers assigned to you as {role} for {venue_id}."
    
        lines = [f"## Review Status for {venue_id} (as {role})\n"]
        total_complete = 0
        total_papers = len(my_edges)
    
        for edge in my_edges:
            note = client.get_note(edge.head)
            title = note.content.get("title", {}).get("value", "Untitled")
            paper_number = note.number
            reviewer_edges = client.get_all_edges(
                invitation=f"{venue_id}/Reviewers/-/Assignment",
                head=edge.head,
            )
            expected = len(reviewer_edges)
            reviews = client.get_all_notes(
                invitation=f"{venue_id}/Submission{paper_number}/-/Official_Review"
            )
            submitted = len(reviews)
            status = "COMPLETE" if submitted >= expected else "INCOMPLETE"
            if submitted >= expected:
                total_complete += 1
            lines.append(f"- **#{paper_number}: {title}** — {submitted}/{expected} reviews [{status}]")
    
        lines.insert(1, f"**Overall:** {total_complete}/{total_papers} papers have all reviews in.\n")
        return "\n".join(lines)
  • Registration of the get_review_status tool using the @mcp.tool decorator.
    @mcp.tool()
    async def get_review_status(venue_id: str, role: str = "area_chair") -> str:
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Check' implies a read-only operation and 'all your assigned papers' defines scope, it lacks details on authentication requirements, rate limits, what 'completion status' specifically returns, or any side effects.

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 description is appropriately sized with a clear front-loaded purpose statement followed by an Args section. Every sentence earns its place; there is no redundancy or unnecessary verbosity.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool has an output schema (not shown), the description appropriately avoids duplicating return value documentation. For a 2-parameter tool, it covers the essential inputs, but lacks contextual guidance on how it fits into the review workflow relative to siblings.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The Args section effectively compensates for the 0% schema description coverage by documenting both parameters: it specifies that 'venue_id' is the venue identifier and details 'role' with valid enum values ('reviewer', 'area_chair', 'senior_area_chair') and the default value ('area_chair').

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the specific action ('Check') and target ('review completion status for all your assigned papers'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_reviews' (which would return content) and 'list_assignments' (which would return assignments without status). However, it doesn't explicitly name siblings to clarify differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_reviews' or 'list_assignments'. It fails to mention prerequisites (e.g., having assignments) or workflow context (e.g., checking completion before submitting a meta-review).

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/michaelqshieh/openreview-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server