Retrieve the current status and commit readiness of a geospatial import by providing its import ID. This helps determine if the import is ready for staging or requires further action.
Import status and commit readiness from backend aggregate state.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| import_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavior-disclosure burden. It adds one useful clue (source is 'backend aggregate state') but does not state whether the operation is read-only, what happens if the import does not exist, or any permission/error behavior.
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 short sentence with no filler, and the key concept ('import status... commit readiness') is front-loaded. It is concise, though it leans toward being too minimal rather than just efficient.
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?
With a single required parameter and an output schema, the description is close to usable: the agent knows what topic to query and the schema fills in the structural details. However, missing usage direction and parameter semantics keep it from being genuinely complete.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description never mentions import_id or how it selects the aggregate state. An agent only knows import_id is a string, with no indication of its meaning, format, or expected examples.
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 names the concrete resource/domain (import status, commit readiness) and identifies the data source ('backend aggregate state'), so the core purpose is recognizable. It lacks an explicit verb like 'summarize' or 'retrieve' and does not explicitly distinguish itself from get_import, so it misses the top tier for clarity.
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?
The description gives no guidance on when to use summarize_import versus siblings like get_import or list_imports. There is no mention of situations where the aggregate/commit-readiness view is preferable or when it should be avoided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.