get_job_statusPoll the status of an async generation job. Use this after create_app or update_app to know when the job is done. Returns status ('running' or 'done'), progress events, and result summary when complete.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | The job_id returned by create_app or update_app |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral detail by listing what the tool returns ('status', 'progress events', 'result summary'), which goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent know what to expect from the call.
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 focused sentences: the first states the purpose and reference to preceding calls, the second details the return payload. All key information is front-loaded with zero filler.
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?
Given its simplicity (single parameter, no output schema, read-only annotations), the description fully equips an agent to call it correctly: it tells when, what it returns, and the parameter source. No additional guidance is necessary.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with job_id adequately documented as 'The job_id returned by create_app or update_app'. The tool description repeats this context but adds no deeper semantic detail beyond the schema baseline, so a 3 is appropriate.
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?
Description states a specific verb ('poll'), a specific resource ('status of an async generation job'), and the exact triggering context ('after create_app or update_app'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_app_status by scoping it to job lifecycle rather than app state.
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?
Explicitly states when to use the tool ('Use this after create_app or update_app to know when the job is done'), which is clear context. It doesn't spell out exclusions or alternatives, but the mention of the generating calls implicitly routes the agent. Meets 'clear context' but not full 'when-not/alternatives'.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes with detailed descriptions, but there are some overlapping pairs like read_app_file/read_app_files and create_entity_records vs seed_entity, which could cause misselection. Singular/plural variants and compatibility tools introduce minor ambiguity, but the majority are well-separated.
Tool names predominantly follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_app, get_entities, delete_secret). There are some variations like 'agency_create_client' and 'seed_entity' that deviate slightly, but the overall convention is predictable and readable.
With 82 tools, the server is far above the typical range and feels overwhelming. Even for a full platform API, the count is extreme and likely increases selection complexity. A more curated set would improve navigability without sacrificing capability.
The tool surface is exceptionally comprehensive, covering app lifecycle, file operations, entity CRUD, versioning, A/B testing, secrets, integrations, domains, agents, scheduling, policies, and member management. No obvious missing operations for the platform's scope; it even includes validation and workflow guidance tools.