Poll one APK teardown job by ID for its current status and result. Use apk_teardown_submit to create a job or apk_teardown_delete_job to remove an existing job.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | required,apk-teardown job id, from apk_teardown_submit's response. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | The tool result payload (shape varies per tool; see each tool's docs resource). |
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, openWorldHint), so the bar is lower; the description still adds the polling contract by saying it returns 'current status and result', which implies the job may be incomplete and the call may be repeated. It does not mention terminal states, rate limits, or behavior for an unknown ID.
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: the core action is front-loaded and the sibling routing follows immediately. Nothing could be removed without losing 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?
With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the single required parameter plus annotations mean few remaining gaps. Only the status lifecycle (what states are returned, when to stop polling) is left implicit for a 1-param read 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?
Schema coverage is 100% and the schema itself already documents job_id including its origin from apk_teardown_submit's response. The description only echoes 'by ID' without adding format or lookup 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 (poll) plus resource and scope (one APK teardown job by ID) and explicitly names the sibling tools it is not (apk_teardown_submit, apk_teardown_delete_job). An agent can distinguish it from the other apk_teardown_* tools without opening a 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?
It routes the agent to the alternatives for adjacent actions (submit to create, delete to remove), which is clear context. It stops short of stating the lifecycle condition that selects this tool (e.g. call after submit while the job is pending), so it is not a full when/when-not statement.
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.
