Poll an async job started by omnarai_query or omnarai_trace. Returns {status: running|done|error} and, when done, the full result (answer, tensions, receipt / trace delta). Poll every ~5 seconds; jobs typically finish in 30–60s.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | The job_id returned by omnarai_query or omnarai_trace. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true), and the description goes further by disclosing the return shape (status: running|done|error) and what is included on completion (answer, tensions, receipt / trace delta). It does not cover failure modes such as an expired or unknown job_id, which is the main remaining gap.
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, zero waste, front-loaded with the purpose and then the return shape and polling cadence. Every clause carries actionable information.
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?
There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming the status enum and the payload fields returned on completion, which is exactly what an agent needs. It falls short only on edge cases like job expiry or a job_id that is not found.
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 coverage is 100% and the single job_id parameter is fully documented in the schema as coming from omnarai_query or omnarai_trace. The description restates that dependency rather than adding format, lifetime, or reuse semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ("Poll an async job") and immediately scopes it to jobs created by omnarai_query or omnarai_trace, which distinguishes it from the other twelve siblings. An agent can tell this is the follow-up/polling tool without opening any schema.
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?
Gives concrete operational guidance: poll every ~5 seconds and expect 30–60s completion, which tells the agent both the trigger and the cadence. It implies but never explicitly states the negative case (do not call without a job_id from a prior query/trace, or what to do if a job never completes).
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.