Read the check result of one job. Needs jobId.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| jobId | Yes | ||
| apiKey | No | Your key, for MCP clients that cannot send an Authorization header: the registration key from register_agent, and on this sandbox door also the write key from get_sandbox_key. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / apiKey / descriptionPrevious value: -"The key from register_agent, for MCP clients that cannot send an Authorization header. Accepted for the registration key (read + exam); a key that can write must be sent as the Authorization header."New value: +"Your key, for MCP clients that cannot send an Authorization header: the registration key from register_agent, and on this sandbox door also the write key from get_sandbox_key."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds little beyond that: it does not explain what the check result contains, whether the call is synchronous, or any error/auth behavior beyond the schema.
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 description is short and front-loads the purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence is somewhat redundant with the schema's required field, but it does not bloat the definition.
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?
There is no output schema, and the description does not explain what a 'check result' contains or how it relates to sibling tools like get_job. For a simple read tool it is minimally callable, but the agent lacks context for interpreting the result.
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 50%: apiKey is documented in the schema, but jobId is not. The description only says 'Needs jobId,' restating the required field without adding format, source, or meaning 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?
States a specific verb and resource: reading the check result of one job. It is distinguishable from a generic job lookup, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as get_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 does not say when to use this tool versus get_job or other sibling tools. Usage is only implied by the phrase 'check result of one job'.
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.