Skip to main content
Glama

cpu_get_mining_status

Inspect a cell's mining job: extractor, resource, yield, progress, claimable units, maturity, end, deposit, and stall state. Use it to claim matured output or offload before a stall wastes time.

Instructions

Read a cell's mining job: whether an extractor is active, which resource it mines, its yield per cycle and cycle length, how far through its schedule it is (completedBatches of batches), the units and whole cycles claimable right now, when the next cycle matures and when the job ends, the remaining deposit, and whether it is stalled. Mining matures in whole cycles — a cycle in progress banks nothing until it completes — and settles in whole cycles too: if one full cycle of output does not fit, nothing settles. That is a stall, and it begins before the box reads full. A stall burns time (the schedule survives, the wait does not), so offload to resume — transport it out, sell via create_lot, craft with it, or withdraw wCPU; a null cap means the warehouse is uncapped. isFinished means the job has run its schedule and will produce nothing more: claim it to bank the rest and free the cell for another job or a craft. Timestamps are unix seconds on the same clock as serverTime. Public — works for any cell, no session required. The owner banks matured cycles with cpu_claim_mining.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tokenIdYesThe tokenId of the cell to inspect mining for.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.10.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / tokenId / maximum
      Previous value: -48990New value: +29150
  2. First observedv0.8.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it explains that mining matures in whole cycles, that partial cycles bank nothing, that stalls begin before the box reads full, that isFinished means no further production, and that timestamps share the server clock. This goes well beyond a simple 'get status' phrase and makes the tool's runtime behavior predictable.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is long but every major clause adds non-obvious operational knowledge, such as whole-cycle settlement, stall behavior, offload remedies, and isFinished semantics. It is front-loaded with the core read purpose, though the density of later sentences makes it slightly harder to scan than a shorter definition could be.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given there is no output schema and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the returned status fields, key behavioral edge cases, the public access model, time semantics, and the follow-up claim action. An agent has everything needed to invoke this tool correctly and interpret its results.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single tokenId parameter, and the schema already explains it as the cell to inspect. The description references cells generally but adds no new parameter-level semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description opens with a precise verb and resource: 'Read a cell's mining job', then enumerates exactly what is reported (active extractor, resource, yield, cycle length, progress, claimable units, stall state, end condition). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling action tools like cpu_start_mining and cpu_claim_mining.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives clear usage context: it is public, works for any cell, requires no session, and uses unix timestamps aligned with serverTime. It also routes the owner to cpu_claim_mining for banking matured cycles and explains offload options when stalled. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool versus named alternatives, but the context is strong.

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

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/projectcpu/project-cpu-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server