Retrieve the result of a specific generation request by its ID, providing progress updates and final output without needing to inspect the page repeatedly.
Retrieve one local request result. Read watches for generation progress; do not repeatedly inspect the page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| request_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a retrieval operation and warns against repeated page inspection, which is useful behavioral context. It does not mention error behavior, persistence, or side effects, but for a simple read operation this is acceptable.
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 short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded and the caution about watches is placed second, making the most important instruction immediately visible.
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?
The tool has only one parameter and no output schema, so the description does not need to explain complex return values. However, it omits where request_id comes from and what shape the result takes, leaving minor gaps for an agent that must invoke the tool correctly in a larger workflow.
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%, and the description does not explain what request_id means, where it comes from, or how it relates to other workbench calls. The parameter name is self-explanatory at a basic level, but the tool description adds no semantic value beyond the schema.
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 action ('Retrieve') and a specific object ('one local request result'), making the core purpose clear. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like workbench_get or workbench_browser_inspect, but the wording is specific enough to distinguish intent.
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 description gives practical usage direction: use watches for generation progress and do not repeatedly inspect the page with this tool. It implies an alternative behavior but does not name the exact sibling tool, so it stops short of fully explicit routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.