get-push-device-importRetrieve progress and per-row errors for a bulk push-device import job by its UUID, so you can monitor import status and fix failed rows.
Get the progress and per-row errors of a bulk push-device import.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| import_job_id | Yes | The import job id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already carry the full safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds the response shape (progress plus per-row errors), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about pagination, limits, or error/pending states.
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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler that covers both the action and its return value. Nothing to trim and nothing misplaced.
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 status tool with no output schema, the description usefully names what comes back (progress, per-row errors). It is nearly complete, though it omits behavior around job lifecycle states or large error sets.
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 coverage is 100% with a single self-describing UUID parameter, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no syntax, format, or sourcing detail beyond what the schema already provides; baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb (Get) and resource (push-device import), and even names the return content: progress and per-row errors. There is no direct sibling for import jobs in the sibling list, so no differentiation is possible, which caps it at 4 rather than 5.
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 mention of 'progress' and 'per-row errors' implies the tool is used to poll a previously-started bulk import, but it never states when to call it, prerequisites, or what alternatives exist. Usage is only implied, not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.