Versium REACH

Job Status Mcp Tool

job_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check the status of an existing job after `create_job`.

Use this tool to poll progress, ETA, and output list readiness while a job is running or after it finishes.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`job_id`	Yes	Positive integer job ID (must be ≥ 1)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`job_id`	No
`job_guid`	No
`list_url`	No
`job_state`	No
`created_at`	No	ISO-8601 creation timestamp
`finished_at`	No	ISO-8601 completion timestamp
`job_operation`	No
`output_list_id`	No
`est_sec_remaining`	No
`output_file_ready`	No
`progress_percentage`	No

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by explaining what status information is available (progress, ETA, output readiness) and when it is meaningful, which goes beyond the schema and annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two concise sentences with the key action front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place; no filler or repetition of structured data.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple one-parameter polling tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description fully covers the tool's purpose, timing, and what status aspects are relevant. No major contextual gap remains.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single `job_id` parameter is clearly documented as a positive integer. The description only implies the parameter via 'existing job' and does not add semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('status of an existing job'), clearly tying it to `create_job`. It also distinguishes this tool from sibling creation/estimation/list tools by focusing on status polling.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Description gives clear usage context: use after `create_job`, to poll progress, ETA, and output list readiness while the job runs or after it finishes. It does not explicitly list when-not-to-use scenarios or alternatives, but the context is sufficiently directive.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Versium REACH tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: list generation (B2B vs B2C), enrichment (contact, demographic, firmographic, C2B, IP-to-domain), project/list management, job lifecycle, and validation. No two tools appear to do the same thing, so an agent can reliably select the correct one.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow the verb_noun pattern consistently, using verbs like list, show, create, preview, search, validate, append, and estimate. Even the segmented append tools (c2b_append, contact_append, demographic_append, firmographic_append, ip_to_domain_append) follow the same pattern with clear noun modifiers. No mixed conventions or vague verbs.

Tool Count4/5

With 19 tools, this is on the higher side but still well-scoped for a data enrichment and list-building platform. The count covers distinct functional areas (audience estimation, enrichment, job/project management, list inspection, documentation) without unnecessary bloat. It feels slightly heavy but each tool earns its place.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers the core workflows: estimating audiences, creating and monitoring jobs, managing projects and lists, and enriching records with various data types. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit delete/update operations for projects or lists, and no direct file download for list contents (though preview_list and show_list provide partial coverage). These are non-blocking gaps that agents can work around.

Resources

Need Help?