cortex_write_statusEsito di un salvataggio che cortex_write aveva restituito come queued: verdetto del gate ed eventuali conflitti aperti.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | job_id restituito da cortex_write |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover safety with readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that this is a status lookup for a queued write and that it returns a gate verdict and open conflicts, but it does not disclose error behavior, whether the call blocks, or what happens for unknown job_ids. This is moderate added context beyond annotations.
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 a single sentence with no filler; the core concept is front-loaded and every phrase contributes. It is appropriately compact for a one-parameter lookup tool.
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?
The tool is simple with one documented required parameter and read-only annotations, and the description gives a high-level view of the return content. Gaps remain: the exact output structure is unspecified, there is no timing/polling guidance, and the relationship to cortex_conflicts is not clarified. These are meaningful but not blocking for basic invocation.
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 only parameter, job_id, already has a schema description ('job_id restituito da cortex_write'), so schema coverage is 100% and the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that the job_id must come from a cortex_write call that was returned as queued, adding a small amount of context but no format or lifecycle details.
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 identifies a specific resource and state: the outcome of a save that cortex_write returned as queued, and names the return focus ('verdetto del gate ed eventuali conflitti aperti'). This clearly separates it from cortex_write, but it does not explicitly distinguish it from the sibling cortex_conflicts, which is also about conflicts.
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?
Usage context is implied through the phrase 'che cortex_write aveva restituito come queued', telling the agent this is for checking the result of a previously submitted queued write. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or comparison to alternatives like cortex_conflicts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Search and recall both retrieve from memory and could be confused, but the descriptions distinguish search as returning results and recall as producing a narrative synthesis. cortex_write_status and cortex_conflicts also both touch conflicts, but one is tied to a specific queued write, so agents can mostly choose correctly.
Most tools share a cortex_ prefix and verb-like names such as write, forget, and recall, but cortex_conflicts is a noun, cortex_write_status is a verb+noun compound, and fetch/search lack the prefix. The convention is readable but not consistently applied.
Seven tools cover the memory domain without bloat. Each tool maps to a distinct operation, and the count feels well-scoped for a persistent memory server.
The surface covers the core memory lifecycle: write, search/recall, fetch by id, delete, and conflict/status inspection. No obvious dead ends or missing operations for the stated purpose.