Poll the status of an async job (a get_latest_report rendering task, generate_report_for_stock, generate_research_report, explore_data_catalogue, explore_data_coverage, screen_stocks, ...).
Returns {"task_id": ..., "status": ..., "result": ...}. `status` is one of
PENDING, SUCCESS, FAILURE, RETRY. `result` is populated once status is SUCCESS.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_id | Yes | The task_id an async tool returned. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries the interesting burden and does so: it documents the status lifecycle (PENDING, SUCCESS, FAILURE, RETRY) and that `result` is only populated at SUCCESS. It omits polling interval, task retention/expiry, and what FAILURE returns, which are relevant for a poll-based tool.
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?
Front-loads the core action, then the return contract, then the status enum — a sensible ordering. The parenthetical tool list is long and trails off with an ellipsis, costing a little tightness, but nothing is redundant with the schema or annotations.
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 exists, so the description correctly steps in to describe the return shape, status values, and result population. It remains silent on polling frequency and on what `result` contains for each task type, minor gaps for a polling tool but not blocking.
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?
Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('The task_id an async tool returned'), so the schema already does the work. The description implies the task_id links to a prior async call but adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, making the baseline 3 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Poll the status of an async job') and then enumerates the concrete producer tools (generate_report_for_stock, explore_data_catalogue, screen_stocks, etc.) whose task_ids this consumes. An agent immediately understands this is the status-check companion to the async report/exploration tools, and no sibling overlaps this role.
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?
Clearly signals the usage context: call it after invoking one of the listed async tools that returned a task_id. It does not, however, give any when-not-to-use guidance or polling cadence advice, but the retrieval scenario is unambiguous.
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.