Skip to main content
Glama
Bieuulls

Illustrator AI & MCP Control

by Bieuulls

illustrator_job_status

DestructiveIdempotent

Check the status of a retained Illustrator job by job ID after an unknown or timeout result, and optionally finalize its export files.

Instructions

Inspect a retained Illustrator job; optionally finalize its export files.

CONTRACT: readOnly=False, destructive=True, idempotent=True, openWorld=True

WHEN TO USE:

  • After illustrator_execute_task returned an unknown/timeout outcome.

  • To inspect a retained job by its jobId before considering a retry.

RESULT: Returns the Python record immediately for queued/running jobs. For an unresolved terminal record, queries the bounded host ledger when the CEP panel is available and idle, then mirrors a completed outcome locally.

EXAMPLES: Reconcile a job whose reply was lost: {"params": {"jobId": "job_7f3a91c2"}}

NOTES:

  • This tool never re-executes the original request.

  • Default inspection never changes files. finalize_export=true explicitly finalizes the selected export's owned backup after known completion. This can restore a destination or delete its backup, and is idempotent. Unknown completion retains both paths. In-memory ownership is lost on process restart; remaining backups then require manual recovery.

  • Explicit finalization succeeds only for verified output or restored backup. Conflict, pending completion/cleanup, and failure return failed execution with the retained file state; ordinary inspection may still successfully report those states.

  • A reset, expired record, missing finalizer, or busy host remains unknown.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
paramsYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by explaining that default inspection never changes files, while finalize_export=true can restore or delete backups, and that unknown completion retains both paths. It also discloses failure modes, state loss on process restart, and conditions that result in unknown status. This is rich behavioral disclosure with no contradiction against the annotated hints.

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?

The description is well-structured with clear sections: CONTRACT, WHEN TO USE, RESULT, EXAMPLES, and NOTES. Every section adds meaningful operational information, and the most important distinction—'never re-executes the original request'—is prominently placed. Despite being lengthy, the density and relevance of the information justify the length.

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

Completeness5/5

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

There is no output schema, so the description correctly explains the result behavior: immediate Python record for queued/running jobs, ledger query for unresolved terminal records, and mirrored completion locally. It also covers failure and unknown cases, making the tool's behavior predictable enough for an agent to use correctly without additional context.

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?

The input schema already provides detailed descriptions for jobId, detail, finalize_export, and expected_document_token. The description adds valuable meaning for jobId (retained job reconciliation) and finalize_export (backup restore/delete semantics), but says nothing about detail or expected_document_token. Since the schema covers those well and the description adds some extra context, a middle score is appropriate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Inspect a retained Illustrator job; optionally finalize its export files.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling execution tools like illustrator_execute_task and illustrator_export_document. The WHEN TO USE section reinforces that this is the reconciliation/inspection tool for previously retained jobs.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The WHEN TO USE section explicitly states the two intended scenarios: after illustrator_execute_task returns an unknown/timeout outcome, and before considering a retry of a retained job. The NOTES also clarify what the tool does not do ('never re-executes the original request'), giving the agent explicit guidance for choosing this over re-running a task.

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