get_report_jobPoll an asynchronous report request. A succeeded job provides result_url; then fetch the report with get_study_report.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | ||
| study_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 | Report generation 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 / $refRemoved value: -"#/properties/study_id"Input schema / properties / job_id / formatAdded value: +"uuid"Input schema / properties / job_id / patternAdded value: +"^([0-9a-fA-F]{8}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[1-8][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[89abAB][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[0-9a-fA-F]{12}|00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000|ffffffff-ffff-ffff-ffff-ffffffffffff)$"Input schema / properties / job_id / typeAdded value: +"string"Input schema / properties / study_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 readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral content by disclosing the state-machine outcome (a succeeded job yields result_url) and the implicit handoff. It omits what a pending or failed job returns, which is the main gap.
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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the next step. Nothing extraneous.
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 values needn't be enumerated, and the description still highlights the one field that matters (result_url). For a polling tool, the missing piece is terminal-state handling — what to do when a job fails or never completes.
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 only 33% — organization_id is documented in-schema, while study_id and job_id carry only format/pattern hints. Those two are largely self-explanatory UUIDs, and the description adds no scoping or ownership semantics, so it neither compensates nor leaves a serious hole.
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?
States a specific verb+resource ('poll an asynchronous report request'), which clearly separates it from mutating siblings like generate_report. It names the follow-up sibling get_study_report, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from the other job-polling siblings (get_report_slide_job, get_customize_study_job, get_participant_job).
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 description gives clear usage context: call it to poll a pending job, and once the job succeeds, switch to get_study_report using result_url. It stops short of stating when polling is unnecessary (e.g. job already terminal) or what cadence/backoff to use.
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.