Check progress of a batch started by bulk_screen. Pass the upload_job_id, the analyze_job_id, or both.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_bulk_status"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| upload_job_id | No | ||
| analyze_job_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It conveys that this is a read-only progress check and that either or both IDs may be supplied, but says nothing about polling behavior, rate limits, terminal/error states, or what happens when neither ID is given (both are nullable with default null).
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, zero filler, with the purpose front-loaded and the parameter instruction second. Every clause earns its place.
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?
No output schema and no annotations exist, so the description should ideally describe what 'progress' returns (status values, completion state). It covers the call mechanics adequately but leaves the return semantics entirely unspecified.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It names both parameters and adds the important constraint 'or both', implying at least one is required despite the schema marking both optional with null defaults. It does not explain ID format or source beyond the implicit bulk_screen link.
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 (check progress) and resource (a batch started by bulk_screen), and explicitly ties the tool to the originating sibling bulk_screen, so an agent can distinguish it from get_analysis and screen_document. The operation is unambiguous.
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?
Gives clear context for when to use it: after starting a batch with bulk_screen. It does not name when-not to use it or an alternative for single-document status (get_analysis), so it falls short of explicit exclusion guidance.
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.