Read the current job context. Returns the full state of your active job including assignments, escalations, and any data you previously stored.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | No | Omit it: the run's own job is used. | |
| in_workspace | No | Run this one call in this workspace id instead of the session's. Nothing is stored; other sessions are not affected. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / in_workspaceAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Run this one call in this workspace id instead of the session's. Nothing is stored; other sessions are not affected.",
+ "type": "integer"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations exist (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description usefully discloses the returned payload (assignments, escalations, previously stored data), which is valuable since there is no output schema, but it says nothing about side effects or why a nominally read tool is marked non-read-only.
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, zero filler, with purpose front-loaded before the return-value detail. Every clause earns its place.
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?
With no output schema, the description needs to convey return value, and it does so adequately (full active-job state with assignments, escalations, stored data). For a two-optional-parameter read tool whose annotations cover the safety profile, this is close to complete; only side-effect/edge behavior is unstated.
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% and both optional parameters (job_id, in_workspace) are documented in the schema, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema's own notes.
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 (read) and resource (job context) plus what is returned: 'the full state of your active job including assignments, escalations, and any data you previously stored.' Clear and self-contained, but it does not name or distinguish itself from the context-mutating siblings (job_update_context, job_complete, job_escalate).
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 ('Read the current job context') and enumerates the returned contents, so an agent can infer when it would want this state. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use framing, no exclusions, and never points to a sibling alternative.
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.