adh.jobs.getCheck the status and result reference of a started ADH analysis-query run using its operation name, so you can track progress and retrieve completed results.
Poll a started ADH analysis-query run by operation name (status + result reference).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| operation_name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool is a polling read that returns 'status + result reference', which is helpful, but it says nothing about permissions, rate limits, polling cadence, or what happens if the operation name is unknown.
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. The core action and key input are immediately clear.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be fully explained, and the description does note 'status + result reference'. However, for a polling tool with zero schema description coverage and no annotations, it should say more about where to get the operation name and how to interpret terminal versus pending status.
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 for the single parameter. It adds meaningful context that operation_name refers to a started analysis-query run, but it does not specify the format or where the caller obtains the operation name, leaving the schema gap only partially filled.
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 uses a specific verb ('Poll') and resource ('started ADH analysis-query run') and identifies the lookup key ('by operation name'). It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like adh.query.start and adh.query.create by scoping to already-started runs, though it does not name those siblings explicitly.
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 phrase 'Poll a started ... run' implies this tool is used after adh.query.start or adh.query.create, giving implied usage. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus adh.queries.list or other status-related siblings, nor does it mention exclusions such as completed or failed runs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.