Check an OpenFOAM job's progress, residuals, errors, and log tail, or list running and recent jobs. Optionally wait for completion before reporting.
Status of a job (progress, residuals, errors, log tail) or a list of running and recent jobs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | No | Job to inspect. Omit to list running and recent jobs. | |
| wait_seconds | No | Wait up to this long for the job to finish before reporting. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results include progress, residuals, errors, and a log tail, which is useful content context, but it says nothing about polling behavior, cost, or how wait_seconds affects the result beyond the schema note.
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 sentence with a tight parenthetical listing the payload; no filler, and the dual-mode behavior is front-loaded so an agent reaches the decision point immediately.
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 readOnly annotations and a fully documented two-parameter schema, the main remaining gap is return formatting, but the description itself enumerates what comes back (progress, residuals, errors, log tail), which largely covers that for a tool with no output schema.
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%, including the omit-to-list semantics of job_id and the wait semantics of wait_seconds, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description's mention of the list mode aligns with job_id being optional but adds no syntax or format detail.
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 names the resource (job) and enumerates the returned content (progress, residuals, errors, log tail), and also covers the list mode. That distinguishes it reasonably well from siblings like read_log or solver_progress, though the primary verb is implicit ("Status of...").
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 dual-mode behavior is stated (inspect one job vs. list running/recent jobs), and the schema param says to omit job_id to list. However, no alternative tools are named and there is no guidance on when to prefer this over read_log or solver_progress.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.