Where a job has got to: whether anybody has taken it, what they submitted, whether it passed checking, and what was paid.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job | Yes | the job id returned when it was posted | |
| token | No | the token returned when the job was posted without an account; not needed when connected with a key |
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It transparently lists the information returned: takers, submitted content, checking result, and payment, giving the agent a concrete picture of the response. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe error/authorization edge cases, but the status-query framing implies a non-mutating 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?
The entire description is one 21-word sentence that front-loads the core concept and lists key status dimensions with a colon and commas. No filler or redundant wording.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining the return value, which it does by specifying four status aspects. It does not cover edge cases like invalid job IDs or latency, but for a status lookup the described scope is adequate.
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 input schema already documents both parameters (job and token) with 100% coverage, so the description need not repeat them. It implicitly ties the 'job' parameter to the status being queried but adds no detail beyond the schema.
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 clearly identifies the tool as a status query for a job, enumerating specific status components: whether taken, what was submitted, pass/fail checking, and payment. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_bids or job_evidence by focusing on overall job progress. It lacks an explicit verb, but the resource and scope are unmistakable.
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 'Where a job has got to' establishes clear context for when to call the tool: whenever an agent needs the current status of a posted job. It does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is unambiguous and sufficient for selection.
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 target clearly distinct actions: feasibility checking, posting physical work, gathering structured info, verifying truth, and reviewing job artifacts. The only plausible confusion is between find_out and observe_world, since both involve paying someone to investigate the physical world, though their outputs differ.
All names are snake_case and readable, but the pattern is mixed: check_feasible, find_out, observe_world, and list_bids are verb-first, do_in_world is a unique verb+preposition, and job_evidence, job_receipt, and job_status are noun-first. The job_* family is internally consistent, but the set as a whole lacks a single predictable convention.
Eight tools is well-scoped for a physical-world exchange: pre-flight feasibility, posting work, requesting information, verification, bidding, status, evidence, and receipts. Each tool earns its place and the count is neither bloated nor thin.
The core lifecycle is covered: check feasibility, post a job, review bids, track status, inspect evidence, and get a verifiable receipt. The main gaps are no explicit cancel/update job tool and no direct job listing tool, but agents can navigate the main workflows without dead ends.