Retrieve a durable job's status, pending inputs, and final results by providing its job ID.
Observe a durable job by ID, including pending inputs and final results.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| jobId | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | ||
| error | No | ||
| jobId | No | ||
| result | No | ||
| status | Yes | ||
| isError | Yes | ||
| directory | No | ||
| messageId | No | ||
| sessionId | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds value by specifying the response includes pending inputs and final results, which is beyond what annotations state. No contradictions found.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the action, the resource, and the key content of the response efficiently.
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?
Given the tool has one parameter, an output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool does and what to expect, with no missing prerequisites or side-effect information.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by clarifying that the jobId parameter is the identifier of the job to observe. Though the name already implies this, the description reinforces it and ties the parameter to the action.
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 verb (observe) and resource (durable job) and explicitly includes what is returned (pending inputs and final results). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like job_cancel, job_list, and job_input, as it is the getter for a single job's details.
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 purpose is clear for a get operation, and the context is evident: use this when you need details of a specific job by ID. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the naming and description make the usage unambiguous relative to job_list and job_input.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.