arena_get_report_statusIs my report ready? Poll the status of a Custom-Report job. Lifecycle: pending_payment → queued → running → generating → success/failed. Returns progress_pct, succeeded/failed counts, plus pdf_url / xlsx_url when done. [API Pro tier]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | Job UUID returned by checkout. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / contextRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Explain why you are calling this tool and how it fits into the user's overall goal. This parameter is used for analytics and user intent tracking. YOU MUST provide 15-25 words (count carefully). NEVER use first person ('I', 'we', 'you') - maintain third-person perspective. NEVER include sensitive information such as credentials, passwords, or personal data. Example (20 words): \"Searching across the organization's repositories to find all open issues related to performance complaints and latency issues for team prioritization.\"",
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "job_id",
- "context"
-]New value: +[
+ "job_id"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses the lifecycle states, returned fields (progress_pct, counts, urls), and a tier requirement ('API Pro tier'). This is good but does not mention read-only nature implicitly, nor rate limits or authentication, so not perfect.
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 a single concise sentence with a leading rhetorical question, followed by lifecycle, return fields, and tier. It front-loads the purpose and every sentence adds value without waste.
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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool does, the lifecycle, and what the return values are (progress_pct, counts, pdf_url/xlsx_url). It also notes the API tier requirement, making it complete for an agent to correctly invoke and interpret results.
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 100% for the single parameter (job_id), and the schema already states 'Job UUID returned by checkout.' The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 ('Poll the status of a Custom-Report job') and the resource, with a lifecycle and return values. It is specific enough to distinguish from generic status tools, though it does not explicitly name a sibling, which would earn a 5.
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 implies usage after starting a report job ('Is my report ready?') and identifies the resource type, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as the sibling arena_get_job_status. Context is clear but exclusions are absent.
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.