get_quiz_jobCheck a quiz generation started with generate_quiz: pass the documentId (latest job for that document) or the jobId.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_quiz_job"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| jobId | No | Job id | |
| documentId | No | Document id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish that this is a safe, idempotent, read-only operation. The description adds useful behavioral context that documentId returns the latest job for that document, but it does not describe job states, polling behavior, or error cases.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the action, the related generate_quiz operation, and the parameter selection rule compactly.
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 simple read-only lookup, the description covers invocation adequately, and annotations carry the safety profile. However, with no output schema, it does not describe what a job status result contains, and it does not clarify what happens if both parameters or neither parameter is provided.
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%, so the schema already labels both parameters. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond "Document id" by specifying that documentId targets the latest job for that document and that jobId is the alternative.
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 states a specific verb and resource: "Check a quiz generation started with generate_quiz." It distinguishes this from retrieving a completed quiz, though it does not contrast with the listed sibling tools such as get_quiz or list_quizzes.
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 clearly indicates when to use the tool: after a quiz generation was started with generate_quiz. It also explains how to choose between documentId and jobId, but does not state exclusions such as what to use when generation is complete.
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.