Poll the status of a DMF import/export execution by its executionId (e.g. NotRun, Executing, Succeeded, PartiallySucceeded, Failed). For a completed export, also returns the download URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| executionId | Yes | The executionId returned by dmf_import_file or dmf_export_package. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value beyond annotations by disclosing that the tool is a poller, enumerating possible statuses, and noting that a completed export returns a download URL. 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?
Two sentences with no filler. The core action and target are front-loaded, the status examples are compactly placed in parentheses, and the download-URL detail is a single meaningful addition.
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 one-parameter, read-only, idempotent polling tool with no output schema, the description gives an agent everything essential: how to identify the job, what statuses to expect, and what extra result appears for completed exports. Nothing critical is missing.
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 input schema already fully documents executionId, including that it is required and returned by dmf_import_file or dmf_export_package, with 100% schema description coverage. The tool description reinforces 'by its executionId' but does not add new parameter semantics, so the baseline score 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 uses a specific verb ('Poll') and target resource ('status of a DMF import/export execution'), keyed by executionId. It also lists concrete status values and mentions the download-URL behavior for completed exports, making it clearly distinguishable from dmf_import_file, dmf_export_package, and other siblings.
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 establishes a clear usage context: it is the follow-up polling operation after an import/export is started, and the schema's executionId description explicitly points to dmf_import_file or dmf_export_package as the source. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but the intended workflow is obvious.
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.