Retrieve a job's status, exit code, error, and timestamps using its job_id or unique job-id prefix to track long-running task outcomes.
Return the JobRecord (status, exit code, error, timestamps) for a job_id or unique job-id prefix.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| error | No | ||
| record | No | ||
| success | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.8Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully enumerates the returned record contents (status, exit code, error, timestamps), but never states that this is a read-only, non-mutating operation, nor any auth, rate-limit, or polling behavior for a status-check tool.
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 no filler; the returned fields are parenthesized rather than expanded, and the input rule is stated compactly. Nothing could be removed without losing information.
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 output schema already covers return values, so restating them is harmless but not the missing piece. What is missing is sibling disambiguation and the read-only safety profile — the two things an agent actually needs to choose and safely call this among agy_start, agy_result, and agy_read.
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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it discloses that job_id may be a full id OR a unique job-id prefix, which is non-obvious behavior absent from the schema's plain 'Job Id' string. It stops short of giving format details or stating what happens on an ambiguous prefix.
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 ('Return') and a specific resource ('the JobRecord') scoped to a job, which is clearer than the bare name agy_status. However, it does nothing to differentiate itself from close siblings like agy_result, agy_read, or agy_sessions, so an agent cannot route between them from this text alone.
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 says what input it takes but never states when to call this versus agy_result, agy_read, or agy_continue. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual triggers, leaving the agent to guess at routing among a crowded sibling set.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.