Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AgentSEO MCP Server

AgentSEO MCP Server

by AgentSEO-dev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript

AgentSEO Job Status

agentseo_job_status
Idempotent

Retrieve status or results for an existing AgentSEO job by job ID. Poll to resume pending work without debiting credits again; repeated polls reference the same job.

Instructions

Get status/result for an existing job. Polling can resume pending work; it does not debit credits again. Repeat polls refer to the same job.

Tool call template

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": {
      "job_id": "<job_id>"
    },
    "name": "agentseo_job_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
job_idYesUUID job identifier previously returned by AgentSEO; it must belong to the connected API-key account. Polling may resume existing pending work without a second debit. Type: String. Required.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.1.5
    • changedInput schema / properties / job_id / description
      Previous value: -"Job ID"New value: +"UUID job identifier previously returned by AgentSEO; it must belong to the connected API-key account. Polling may resume existing pending work without a second debit. Type: String. Required."
  2. First observedv0.1.4

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: polling can resume pending work and does not debit credits again. This explains the otherwise puzzling readOnlyHint=false. It does not describe the possible job states or how completion is signaled, which is the remaining behavioral gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences with zero filler, front-loaded with what the tool returns before the cost/idempotency caveats. Every sentence conveys distinct information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With one required parameter and annotations covering safety/idempotency, the definition is close to sufficient. However, there is no output schema, and the description never indicates what a result looks like (pending vs. complete states, where the payload lives), which an agent needs to decide whether to keep polling. Adequate but with a clear gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the job_id property already documents the UUID format, account ownership, and the no-second-debit rule. The description's 'existing job' adds only framing, not new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb+resource ('Get status/result for an existing job') and the name/title reinforce it. It is clearly distinguishable from every sibling, which are all analysis/generation tools rather than job-polling. It stops short of stating which tools create the jobs being polled, so it is clear but not fully self-locating.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'Get status/result for an existing job' plus 'Repeat polls refer to the same job' makes the intended flow (call after a job exists, poll repeatedly) clear without needing to name an alternative, since no sibling performs the same function. It does not say what to do when the job is unknown/expired or how frequently to poll, so guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools