Busca o resultado de um job assíncrono (ex.: relatório) pelo job_id retornado por outra tool. Espera inline até aguardar_segundos. Sem polling: só chame de novo se voltar status 'running'.
Bulk support: accepts job_ids for batched execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | ||
| account | No | ||
| job_ids | No | ||
| aguardar_segundos | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations (readOnly/idempotent hints), the description adds important behavioral details: inline waiting, no polling semantics, re-call condition, and bulk execution. These are not redundant and materially improve the agent's expectations.
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 two short paragraphs that deliver required information without padding. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds usage and bulk-support details.
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?
Given no output schema, the one description does not fully enumerate result shapes. However, it covers the critical mechanics: retrieval, wait, no-polling, re-call, and bulk usage, so it is largely complete for this simple tool.
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?
With 0% schema_description_coverage, the description must compensate. It explains job_id, aguardar_segundos, and job_ids/bulk behavior clearly. However, the `account` parameter is not addressed, leaving a minor gap in an otherwise useful explanation.
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 ('Busca o resultado') and identifies a clear resource: an asynchronous job identified by job_id returned from another tool. It distinguishes this from domain-specific siblings by focusing on the generic job-result retrieval path.
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?
Provides explicit usage context: call it with a job_id from another tool, wait up to aguardar_segundos, and do not poll unless the status is running. It mentions bulk support with job_ids, but does not explicitly discuss when to use alternatives like cigam_resultado or cigam_relatorio.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.