Skip to main content
Glama
Archiware MCP

Archiware MCP

by mnott

pack_status

Read the progress of a detached pack: running state, completed and total tars, bytes, current tar, rate, ETA, and recent log lines. Use it to monitor packing without waiting on the web UI.

Instructions

Read-only. Progress of a detached pack: running or not, tars done/total, bytes, current tar, rate, ETA, last log lines.

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": {
      "set": "<set>"
    },
    "name": "pack_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
setYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.1

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it does declare 'Read-only' plus a useful inventory of returned data (running state, tars done/total, bytes, current tar, rate, ETA, last log lines). It stops short of describing behavior when no detached pack exists, error responses, or cost/latency of reading logs.

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?

A leading 'Read-only.' flag followed by one dense sentence of returned fields — everything is front-loaded with no filler. The telegraphic list style reads slightly like a changelog but stays efficient.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the field inventory is genuinely necessary and mostly complete for a status reader. The gaps are the unexplained 'set' parameter and unspecified behavior for a job that is not running.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is 0% for the single required 'set' parameter, and the description adds nothing about it — not what a set identifies, nor whether it is a catalog set name, path, or ID. The one parameter is left fully undocumented in both schema and description.

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 pairs a concrete verb (read progress) with a specific resource (a detached pack) and enumerates the reported fields, so an agent can tell this is a monitoring/status reader. It does not name the sibling 'pack' that presumably launches the job, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

'Progress of a detached pack' implies use after a pack has been started in the background, but the description never states when to call this versus 'pack' or 'pack_stop', nor any prerequisite such as a job needing to be running. Usage is implied and left to inference.

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