Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
dsh-mcp-worker

dsh-mcp-worker

by tongsh6
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

查询批量任务状态

dsh_batch_status
Read-only

Retrieve overall and per-subtask status and counts for a batch job, optionally polling until the batch finishes or times out.

Instructions

返回批量任务的整体状态、各子任务状态与计数；wait_s>0 时轮询到批量结束或超时。

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": {
      "batch_id": "<batch_id>"
    },
    "name": "dsh_batch_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
wait_sNo长轮询等待秒数（默认 0）
batch_idYesdsh_batch_run 返回的 batch_id

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.7.2

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real behavior on top: what is returned (per-subtask statuses and counts) and that wait_s>0 turns the call into a long-poll that ends on batch completion or timeout. It does not mention failure modes for an unknown or expired batch_id.

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?

One tightly packed sentence with a semicolon separating the return contract from the polling modifier; the core output is front-loaded and nothing is wasted.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema, the description correctly fills the gap by enumerating the returned fields, and it is sufficient for a 2-parameter read-only tool. Minor gaps remain around error behavior and whether subtask details are truncated for large batches.

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%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description adds genuine meaning to wait_s by explaining its effect (poll until batch end or timeout) rather than just 'wait seconds'. batch_id is not elaborated on, but its schema description already points to dsh_batch_run.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific resource (batch task) and verb (return) plus the exact payload: overall status, per-subtask statuses, and counts. The 'batch' qualifier implicitly separates it from dsh_status for single tasks, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: the wait_s>0 polling clause tells the agent this is the tool for waiting on batch completion, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of when to prefer dsh_batch_result or dsh_cancel.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools