get_participant_jobPoll a participant batch. On success, list_participants for the study to retrieve the invitations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | ||
| organization_id | No | Organization for this operation and billing. Use list_organizations to choose an active membership. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes | Participant creation status. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / organization_id / descriptionPrevious value: -"Platform admins only: select an organization for this operation. Required when changing another organization’s study or using its wallet."New value: +"Organization for this operation and billing. Use list_organizations to choose an active membership."Input schema / properties / organization_idAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Platform admins only: select an organization for this operation. Required when changing another organization’s study or using its wallet.",
+ "maxLength": 128,
+ "minLength": 1,
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseInput schema / properties / job_id / patternAdded value: +"^([0-9a-fA-F]{8}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[1-8][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[89abAB][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[0-9a-fA-F]{12}|00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000|ffffffff-ffff-ffff-ffff-ffffffffffff)$"Output schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Output schema / properties / result / properties / error / $refRemoved value: -"#/properties/result/properties/result_url"Output schema / properties / result / properties / error / typeAdded value: +[
+ "string",
+ "null"
+]Output schema / properties / result / properties / total_count / anyOfPrevious value: -[
- {
- "type": "integer"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
-]New value: +[
+ {
+ "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+ "minimum": -9007199254740991,
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without help. The description adds polling semantics and the post-success handoff, but discloses nothing about job states, terminal failure, or partial results — meaningful gaps for a polling endpoint.
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 short sentences with zero padding, and the core action is front-loaded before the follow-up instruction. The terseness borders on under-specification, but no sentence is wasted.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required. Still, for a polling tool the description omits the job's lifecycle states and what to do while pending or on failure, leaving the agent to infer the control flow.
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 coverage is 50%: organization_id carries its own guidance, but job_id has only format/pattern with no description. The description never mentions job_id, its provenance, or how to obtain one, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented required parameter.
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 uses a specific verb ('Poll') and resource ('participant batch'), making the async-job nature clear and distinguishing it from sibling readers like get_report_job or get_customize_study_job. The mismatch between 'job' in the name and 'batch' in the description is minor imprecision but doesn't obscure the purpose.
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 implies the call should be repeated ('Poll') and provides a concrete follow-up step ('list_participants for the study'), which is genuinely useful routing. However, it never states the upstream trigger (job_id presumably comes from create_participants) nor how to act on failure, so the when-to-use guidance stays implied rather than explicit.
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.