Get one generation job's status, progress and outputs
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"generationJobId": "<generationJobId>"
},
"name": "generation.status"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| generationJobId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the shape of the response in broad terms (status, progress, outputs), which is more than nothing, but it does not say what status values exist, whether outputs are null until completion, or whether the call is a safe non-mutating read.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and the returned fields come first. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than optimal density.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description is the only source of return-value information, and it names the three payload categories. However, for a status/polling tool it omits the state machine (what 'status' can be) and completion semantics, leaving the agent to guess when outputs become available.
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 0%, so the single generationJobId parameter is undocumented in the schema, but its name is largely self-describing. The description adds no meaning beyond the name — no indication of where the ID comes from (e.g., returned by generation.list or a generate call) or its format.
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 ('Get') and resource ('one generation job's status, progress and outputs'), and the singular 'one' plus the required job ID implicitly separates it from the plural sibling generation.list. It never names that sibling, so the differentiation is inferable rather than explicit.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is for polling a single known job rather than enumerating jobs via generation.list. There is no stated when-to-use guidance, no polling cadence, no mention of what to do when the job is cancelled via generation.cancel, and no exclusions.
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.