Poll a background notebook execution started by notebook_run with its run_id to track progress or get results without blocking long-running cells.
Poll a background notebook run started by notebook_run.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| run_id | Yes | Run id returned by notebook_run |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'Poll' plus 'background' usefully signals a non-blocking, repeatable status check on an async operation, but nothing is said about terminal states, error behavior, rate limits, or whether the eventual result is included.
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?
One sentence, zero waste, with the essential information (poll, background, origin) front-loaded. Nothing is padded or repeated from the name.
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 polling tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It does not tell the agent what a poll returns or when the run is finished, which is the main thing an agent needs to decide whether to call again.
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?
There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Run id returned by notebook_run'), so the schema already fully documents it. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb (poll) and resource (background notebook run) and explicitly ties the run to its originator, 'started by notebook_run'. That distinguishes it from the start (notebook_run), cancel (notebook_run_cancel), and content siblings, though it never names them as alternatives.
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 implies usage by stating the run must have been 'started by notebook_run', so the agent knows this is a follow-up call. However, there is no guidance on polling cadence, when to stop polling, or when to prefer notebook_run_cancel instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.