jevrelay_statusCheck the current status and partial output of a JevRelay run by run ID to monitor progress and retrieve intermediate results without waiting for completion.
Return the current status and partial output of a JevRelay run.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| runId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the read-only safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns partial output, which is useful behavioral context, but it does not explain status values, whether output is cumulative, or any polling/blocking 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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant or filler language. It is appropriately sized for a simple status-retrieval tool.
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?
For a simple read-only status tool, the description covers the basic purpose and return gist, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, with no output schema and no parameter explanation, it leaves gaps in what the status values mean and how runId should be supplied.
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%, so the description should compensate, but it never names or explains the runId parameter, its UUID format, or that it is required. The phrase 'of a JevRelay run' only indirectly implies a run identifier, leaving the parameter semantics almost entirely to the schema.
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), resource (JevRelay run), and the returned content (current status and partial output). It is clear enough to distinguish from validate/run/stop based on the common 'status' naming, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from those siblings or name alternatives.
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 this tool versus the sibling tools jevrelay_run, jevrelay_stop, or jevrelay_validate. It implies polling or checking a run's status but does not state any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.