windy-word-mcp

get_install_status

Check the current state of an async install job. Provide the jobId to receive status: running, completed, or unknown if job not found.

Instructions

Return the current state of an async install job started by install_dependency_async. Status is "running" (still in flight) or "completed" (finished — check result.ok for success). If the job is not found (FIFO-evicted after 50 jobs, or wrong jobId), returns status="unknown".

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": {
      "jobId": "<jobId>"
    },
    "name": "get_install_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`jobId`	Yes	Job id returned by install_dependency_async.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.11.0Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses all possible status values ('running', 'completed', 'unknown'), explains the job eviction policy (FIFO after 50 jobs), and what happens with a wrong jobId. This provides good behavioral context beyond a simple state machine.

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?

The description is three sentences long, front-loaded with the purpose, and every word adds value. No waffle or redundancy.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description fully explains the return values (status strings and result.ok) and covers edge cases (eviction, wrong ID). For a simple status tool, this is complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with a clear parameter description. The tool description adds value by explaining the consequences of providing an incorrect or evicted jobId (returns 'unknown'), which goes beyond the schema's definition.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Return the current state of an async install job started by install_dependency_async'. It uses a specific verb and resource, and implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like install_dependency_async and list_install_jobs by referencing the job started by the former.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description indicates when to use the tool ('after calling install_dependency_async') and what the possible statuses mean, including the 'unknown' case. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is clear given its narrow polling purpose.

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

Deploy Server