Progress of a pairs scan started with start_pairs_scan.
Returns `{task_id, status, progress, message, dashboard_url}`. When the
scan has finished, the answer also carries `result`, with the pairs
that passed and the closest misses (`candidates`), and `report_url`, the
report, which the run's card in the chat shows.| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral detail: the exact return fields (`task_id`, `status`, `progress`, `message`, `dashboard_url`) and that upon completion it also returns `result` with passed pairs and `candidates`, plus `report_url`. This goes beyond what annotations provide.
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 front-loaded with purpose, then provides return details in a compact, well-structured manner. Every sentence contributes directly to the agent's understanding.
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?
Given the annotations cover safety and there is no output schema, the description fully explains the return values, including what appears when the scan finishes. This is complete for a progress-check tool.
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 0% for the single `task_id` parameter, so the description must compensate. It indirectly implies `task_id` comes from `start_pairs_scan`, but does not explicitly explain the parameter's meaning or format. This is a baseline 3: partial compensation via contextual reference.
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 states a specific verb+resource: retrieving progress of a pairs scan. It explicitly ties to the sibling `start_pairs_scan`, making it easy to distinguish from other progress tools for different scans.
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 clearly indicates this is used after starting a pairs scan via `start_pairs_scan`, giving the agent a clear context for when to call it. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the link to the start tool provides sufficient 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.