get_test_statusLook up the current status of a submitted test job.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| jobId | Yes | The job ID returned by submit_test. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | No | Tool result payload (JSON object) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., whether it polls, whether it errors on invalid jobId).
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?
Single sentence, no fluff, efficient. Front-loaded with the core action.
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?
For a simple read-only tool with annotations and output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It lacks context about possible status values or how to interpret results, but output schema covers return.
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?
With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning to the jobId parameter beyond what the schema already provides.
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 clearly states the action (look up) and the resource (current status of a submitted test job). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_test_results, though not explicitly, by focusing on status rather than results.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_test_results or cancel_test. The description does not provide context for appropriate usage.
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.
The tools cover a wide range of functionalities, but each has a clearly distinct purpose. For example, submit_test, submit_test_batch, submit_combo, and submit_interaction_scene are all different types of submissions with unique parameters. However, the sheer number of tools (43) might cause some initial confusion, but descriptors resolve ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., list_projects, create_project, get_test_results). The only exception is 'whoami', which is a common idiom and does not break the pattern. Overall, naming is highly predictable.
43 tools is on the high side for a single server. The domain is broad (testing, worker marketplace, credits, cards, feedback, video), so the count is justifiable. However, it borders on being overwhelming, and some tools could be consolidated (e.g., multiple submit_* variants).
The tool surface covers core workflows like project creation, test submission, result retrieval, worker management, and credit operations. However, there are gaps: no update or delete for projects, no delete for worker offerings, and no user-facing combo editing (though combos are predefined). These are minor but noticeable.