Skip to main content
Glama

cpu_get_mining_status

Inspect a cell's mining status: active extractor, resource, yield per cycle, schedule progress, claimable output, next maturation, job end, deposit, and stall detection.

Instructions

Read a cell's mining job: whether an extractor is active, which resource it mines, its yield per cycle and cycle length, how far through its schedule it is (completedBatches of batches), the units and whole cycles claimable right now, when the next cycle matures and when the job ends, the remaining deposit, and whether it is stalled. Mining matures in whole cycles — a cycle in progress banks nothing until it completes — and settles in whole cycles too: if one full cycle of output does not fit, nothing settles. That is a stall, and it begins before the box reads full. A stall burns time (the schedule survives, the wait does not), so offload to resume — transport it out, sell via create_lot, craft with it, or withdraw wCPU; a null cap means the warehouse is uncapped. isFinished means the job has run its schedule and will produce nothing more: claim it to bank the rest and free the cell for another job or a craft. Timestamps are unix seconds on the same clock as serverTime. Public — works for any cell, no session required. The owner banks matured cycles with cpu_claim_mining.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tokenIdYesThe tokenId of the cell to inspect mining for.
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and excels: it discloses that mining matures in whole cycles (banking nothing mid-cycle), that stalls begin before the box reads full, that a stall burns time (schedule survives, wait does not), and that timestamps use the same clock as serverTime. This goes well beyond what annotations could provide.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Although lengthy, every clause adds necessary behavioral nuance (stall mechanics, offload options, isFinished meaning, public access, timestamp reference). It opens with the core purpose and flows logically through return fields, edge cases, and related actions — no wasted words.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the complexity of mining state and the absence of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers return values, timing semantics, stall conditions, what happens when finished, public accessibility, and indicates the companion claim tool — enough for an agent to invoke and interpret results correctly.

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?

The single parameter tokenId is fully described in the schema (100% coverage, min/max, and a clear explanation). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, leaving the schema to carry the burden. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description begins with 'Read a cell's mining job' — a specific verb and resource — and enumerates exactly what data is returned (active extractor, resource, yield, cycle length, progress, claimable units, timing, deposit, stall status). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like cpu_start_mining and cpu_claim_mining by focusing on read-only status inspection.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides strong context: it states the tool is public (no session required), explains when results indicate the job is finished ('isFinished' means nothing more will be produced, claim it), and points to cpu_claim_mining for the owner to bank cycles. It also mentions offload options to resume from a stall, giving practical guidance on when to use this status read versus acting on it.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/projectcpu/project-cpu-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server