get_statusRetrieve a summary of all phase progress and access counts to quickly assess skill creation workflow status.
Return a summary of all phase progress (not-started/in-progress/completed) and access counts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| phases | Yes | Status of each phase |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the read-only nature is well established. The description adds useful context about what is summarized, but does not disclose additional behaviors such as caching, freshness, or access-count semantics beyond the annotation layer.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the exact capability and even enumerates the status values, making efficient use of space.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters), the presence of an output schema, and annotations covering safety/idempotency, the description is complete for an agent to understand what will happen. The only missing aspect is usage differentiation, which is already penalized in the usage_guidelines dimension.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter ambiguity to resolve. Schema description coverage is effectively 100% for an empty properties object, and the description correctly adds no irrelevant parameter information.
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 states a specific verb ('Return') and a specific resource ('a summary of all phase progress... and access counts'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_process and mark_progress. The inclusion of the status categories (not-started/in-progress/completed) adds concrete meaning.
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 explains what the tool does but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as search_process or mark_progress. There are no statements like 'use this for an overview' or 'use search_process for detailed filtering', leaving usage to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.