Kiro MCP Server

Kiro status

kiro_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Reports whether kiro-cli is installed and ready by checking version, V3 ACP engine startup, sign-in state, capabilities, workspace trust, operator policy, and log paths; optionally runs diagnostics.

Instructions

Call first. Reports whether kiro-cli is installed (path, version), whether the V3 ACP engine starts, the host's capabilities (prompt and session capabilities, extension methods, session sources, list scopes, execution targets, auto-compaction range), sign-in state from kiro-cli whoami (account type, email, profile only), the roots and their saved workspace trust, the operator policy, and Kiro's log paths. Signed out: run kiro-cli login in a terminal; this server never logs in. include_diagnostics adds kiro-cli diagnostic and kiro-cli doctor --all.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "kiro_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`include_diagnostics`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`cli`	Yes
`roots`	Yes
`policy`	Yes
`account`	Yes
`warnings`	Yes
`engine_v3`	Yes
`log_paths`	Yes
`signed_in`	Yes
`diagnostics`	Yes
`capabilities`	Yes
`dropped_lines`	Yes
`attached_sessions`	Yes
`sign_in_instruction`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Nov 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the description need only add what they cannot. It does: the auth boundary ("this server never logs in"), the deliberately narrow scope of whoami output ("account type, email, profile only"), and the fact that diagnostics are opt-in behind a flag. Minor gap: it doesn't say how costly or slow the diagnostics/doctor subprocesses are, which matters for an open-world tool.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loads the imperative "Call first" and then packs the report contents into one dense enumeration. The parenthetical capability list is long but each item is a distinct field, so little is wasted; the run-on structure is the only weakness.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still tells the agent what categories of information arrive and how to act on the signed-out case. Install state, engine start, capabilities, auth, trust, policy, logs, and the diagnostics flag are all covered, so nothing an agent needs before calling is missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the single parameter — and it does explain that include_diagnostics adds `kiro-cli diagnostic` and `kiro-cli doctor --all`. That is real meaning beyond a bare boolean, but it doesn't say where those results land in the response or what they cost, leaving the compensation partial.

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?

States a specific verb (reports) and a precisely enumerated set of resources: CLI install path/version, ACP engine startup, host capabilities, sign-in state, roots/workspace trust, operator policy, log paths. Sibling tools like kiro_usage and kiro_settings are clearly distinct activities, so an agent can pick this one without opening a schema.

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?

"Call first" gives an explicit sequencing directive, and the signed-out branch names the concrete alternative action (`kiro-cli login` in a terminal) plus the boundary that this server never logs in. It stops short of saying when to prefer a sibling (e.g., kiro_usage for cost) or when the tool is not needed, so 4 rather than 5.

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