Fetch the completed result payload for an async simulation job by id. Read-only and non-destructive; not separately rate-limited. Use get_job_status to check progress before the job completes. Returns the completed job's result payload.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | UUID of the async job |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond these: 'not separately rate-limited' and the requirement that the job must be completed to fetch its result. 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?
The description is short and front-loaded, but it contains redundancy: 'Returns the completed job's result payload' restates the opening sentence, and 'Read-only and non-destructive' echoes the annotations. Two of four sentences do not earn their 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?
For a one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description gives enough context: what it fetches, that the job must be completed, how to check progress, and the return value. It does not detail the behavior if called before completion, but this is a minor gap for such a simple read-only 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?
The input schema fully documents job_id as 'UUID of the async job' with 100% schema coverage. The description only refers to 'by id' and does not add further parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 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?
The description opens with a specific verb and object: 'Fetch the completed result payload for an async simulation job by id.' It is clearly distinct from sibling job-related tools like get_job_status and poll_job, leaving no ambiguity about what this tool retrieves.
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?
It explicitly says to 'Use get_job_status to check progress before the job completes,' naming the alternative and the condition that selects it. It also notes that the tool is 'not separately rate-limited,' giving practical guidance on when it can be invoked.
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.
