get_task_statusChecks the task's current status. Call it again when the user asks about progress. specialist_accepted/specialists_invited contain profile_url (already in the right language) — show it to the user as a link instead of a bare id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_id | Yes |
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?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the response includes specialist_accepted/specialists_invited with profile_url fields, instructs the agent to render them as links, and notes the language is already correct. It doesn't describe side effects, but the action is explicitly a check, so read-only behavior is reasonably evident.
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?
Two sentences with no wasted words. The first states the purpose, the second adds a usage trigger and a valuable output-handling note. Everything present earns its place, and the key information is front-loaded.
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?
For a single-parameter status tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential details: what it does, when to call it, and how to handle the notable response fields. It doesn't list possible status values or error conditions, but those are not required for an agent to select and 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 schema has 0% description coverage for task_id, and the description doesn't explicitly explain the parameter. However, the parameter name and the description's reference to 'the task' make its meaning obvious, so the lack of explicit parameter documentation is only a minor gap.
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 specific verb and resource: 'Checks the task's current status.' It naturally differentiates from siblings like get_task_result by emphasizing progress rather than final output, and the 'Call it again' phrasing clarifies its role as a status poll.
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?
It provides an explicit usage trigger: 'Call it again when the user asks about progress.' It doesn't name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the distinction from get_task_result and the simple tool set make the appropriate context clear.
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.
The tools are mostly distinct: search_specialists, create_task, cancel_task, and get_task_repo_files each have clear, separate roles. However, get_task_result and get_task_status overlap somewhat since both report task status, though get_task_result additionally provides the repo link.
Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: create_task, cancel_task, get_task_status, get_task_result, get_task_repo_files, and search_specialists. The one non-get verb, search_specialists, still fits the same predictable convention.
Six tools is well-scoped for the hiring-specialist workflow: searching, creating, canceling, monitoring, retrieving results, and inspecting repo files. Each tool serves a necessary step without unnecessary expansion.
The core lifecycle is covered: find a specialist, create a task, cancel if needed, check status, retrieve results, and inspect files. Minor gaps exist such as no explicit task-listing tool or ability to update task details, but these are not obvious dead ends for the stated purpose.