get_job_statusReturns the status of an asynchronous job started by crawl_profile or request_transcript: pending, processing, completed or failed. Free to call: polling must never cost credits. Poll every 10–30 seconds; jobs typically complete within a few minutes. Cost: free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| jobRef | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds critical context: the call is free, credits are never consumed, and jobs typically complete in minutes. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
Three short sentences each add unique value: purpose/statuses, cost guarantee, and poll timing. No redundant or vague wording.
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 polling tool with no output schema, the description covers the return statuses, typical latency, and cost. It lacks explicit return structure but the status values are sufficiently self-explanatory.
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?
The schema only specifies a required string jobRef with no description. The description adds that the job is started by crawl_profile or request_transcript, implying jobRef is the job identifier from those tools. However, it doesn't explicitly describe its format or where to obtain it, leaving some ambiguity.
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 it returns the status of an asynchronous job and names the specific source tools (crawl_profile, request_transcript), along with the possible statuses. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform other operations.
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 explicitly states polling is free and recommends a 10–30 second interval with typical completion time, giving the agent clear guidance on when and how to call. It does not mention alternative tools, but no alternative exists for this purpose.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes (search, profile management, post retrieval, async jobs, billing). Some overlap exists among get_trending_outliers, niche_trends, and search_outliers, but their descriptions differentiate free/unauthenticated, niche-specific, and filtered search, so an agent can usually pick correctly.
The vast majority of tool names follow a verb_noun pattern (crawl_profile, get_post, remix_post, track_profile). The main exception is 'niche_trends', which is a noun phrase, and the minor spelling of 'topup' instead of 'top_up'. Otherwise, naming is consistent enough to predict tool behavior.
At 21 tools, this is slightly above the typical 3-15 range, but the broad scope (search, crawling, tracking, media handling, transcripts, remixing, billing) justifies the number. Each tool serves a distinct function, and none feel redundant, so the count is reasonable for the domain.
The tool set covers the core workflow well: searching outliers, crawling/tracking profiles, fetching posts/media/transcripts, and generating remixes. However, there is no way to list all posts for a specific profile (only 'recent tracked posts' via get_profile and an incremental feed via get_tracked_updates), which is a notable gap for deep creator analysis.