Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-sac-tools

mcp-sac-tools

by pmankineni
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript

sac_import_status

Retrieve the current status of an import job using its job and model IDs.

Instructions

Check the status of an import job.

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": {
      "modelId": "<modelId>",
      "jobId": "<jobId>"
    },
    "name": "sac_import_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
jobIdYesThe job ID
modelIdYesThe model/provider ID
dataTypeNo
dimensionNameNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, and the description lacks behavioral details such as whether the tool is for polling, whether it returns status codes, or what the response format is. Minimal disclosure beyond the basic purpose.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Extremely concise (one short sentence) but lacks essential information. Conciseness is appropriate for a simple status check, but the description is too terse to be fully useful.

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?

For a tool that checks import status, the description should mention expected behavior (e.g., polling, possible statuses) or link to related tools like sac_run_import. Without output schema or annotations, it is incomplete.

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 50%, but the description adds no meaning to parameters. The schema already describes jobId and modelId; the description does not explain optional parameters dataType and dimensionName or their purpose in the context of checking import status.

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?

Description clearly states 'Check the status of an import job', providing a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like sac_export_status or sac_import_invalid_rows, which are similar status-checking tools.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention that it should be used after starting an import or polling for completion.

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