Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
agy-foreman

agy-foreman

by mountaser
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

agy_get

Retrieve a job record and its diff by job ID, with optional file paths, diff mode, token limits, and wait time for progress.

Instructions

Get job record and diff by job ID

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": {
      "job_id": "<job_id>"
    },
    "name": "agy_get"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathsNoDiff file paths
job_idYesJob identifier
wait_sNoWait seconds (0-60)
diff_modeNoDiff mode
max_diff_tokensNoMax diff tokens

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden yet says nothing about whether the call blocks, whether wait_s long-polls until completion, what happens if the job is still running, or how large diffs are truncated by max_diff_tokens. The one clause about 'diff' hints at payload size concerns without explaining them.

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 single seven-word sentence with zero filler and the key scoping fact (by job ID) up front. It is efficient but arguably under-sized for a five-parameter tool, so not a 5.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Five parameters, no annotations, and no output schema means the description is the only place behavioral context could live, and it supplies almost none. An agent cannot tell from this text whether the call waits, what the diff modes mean, or what the returned 'job record' contains.

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 100%, so all five parameters are already documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema — notably it never explains the wait_s polling behavior or the stat/full/paths diff modes that an agent would most need interpreted.

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?

States a specific verb+resource pair (retrieve job record and its diff) scoped by job ID, which is more informative than the vague 'agy_get' name alone. It does not, however, distinguish itself from sibling agy_status, which an agent would reasonably expect to also return job information.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus agy_status, agy_start, or agy_act, nor any mention of preconditions (e.g., job must exist or be finished). The presence of wait_s strongly implies polling semantics that the description never addresses.

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