rocky_simulation_statusReports solver status, progress percentage, computed time set, and result availability for a running simulation.
Report the state of the running simulation.
Returns whether the solver is running, the progress percentage, the computed time set and whether results are available.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It helpfully discloses the returned information (running state, progress, computed time, result availability), but it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, whether it polls or takes a snapshot, whether it requires an active simulation, or what happens if no simulation is running.
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 two short sentences with no wasted text. The core action is front-loaded, and the return fields are listed compactly.
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?
An output schema exists, so the description does not need to fully specify return values; the brief return summary is sufficient. For a zero-parameter status tool, the main missing piece is explicit differentiation from rocky_status and rocky_wait_for_completion, but otherwise it is complete enough to invoke correctly.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameter semantics to clarify, and the description appropriately focuses on the report contents instead.
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 clear verb and resource: report the state of the running simulation. It is specific about what is being inspected, but it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools such as rocky_status or rocky_wait_for_completion, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone which status tool applies.
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 phrase 'running simulation' implies the usage context, so an agent can infer this is for checking an in-progress simulation. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus rocky_status or rocky_wait_for_completion, nor any stated exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.