eLabFTW MCP

list_experiment_statuses

Retrieve all experiment statuses for the active eLabFTW team or a specified numeric team ID. Use this read-only tool to view available workflow stages for experiments.

Instructions

List all experiment statuses for the active eLabFTW team. Specify team_id='current' (default) or a numeric team ID. Read-only.

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": "list_experiment_statuses"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`team_id`	No		current

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the critical trait: "Read-only." It says nothing about pagination, result caps, or whether the team must exist/have permissions, so it is adequate but not rich for an annotation-free tool.

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?

Two compact sentences with zero waste; the purpose is front-loaded and the parameter rule follows immediately. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value shape need not be described, and the single parameter and its default are covered. Only minor gaps remain (pagination, team-permission preconditions).

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: team_id accepts 'current' (the default) or a numeric team ID. That is exactly the semantic an agent needs and the schema leaves bare.

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 verb+resource ("List all experiment statuses") and scopes it to the active eLabFTW team. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the near-named sibling list_item_statuses, but the resource is unambiguous.

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 implied — an agent that needs the set of experiment statuses would call this — and the default team behavior is clarified. There is no explicit when-not guidance or routing to alternatives such as list_item_statuses.

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