Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Crawlora-org

Crawlora MCP

Official
by Crawlora-org
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

research_status

Check a research job by job_id to see its state—queued, running, succeeded, failed, or cancelled—plus progress counts, warnings, errors, and deadline info.

Instructions

Read a research job status. Returns the state of a research job by job_id: queued, running, cancelling, succeeded, failed or cancelled. The response carries progress counts, research progress (round, searches completed, sources read, questions answered), usage, warnings, partial, deadline_at and any error. A job not started within 30 minutes fails with timeout.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
job_idYesResearch job ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.17.12

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it enumerates possible states (queued, running, cancelling, succeeded, failed, cancelled), lists returned fields including progress, research progress, usage, warnings, partial, deadline_at, and error, and discloses a timeout failure mode. It does not cover auth or repeated-polling behavior, but it is substantially transparent for a read status tool.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose followed by return states and response fields. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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

Completeness4/5

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

No output schema exists, so the description must explain returns, and it lists the states and key response fields clearly. It is nearly complete for a status polling tool, though it could mention where job_id comes from and whether polling is safe.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single job_id parameter, so the schema already fully documents it. The description repeats 'by `job_id`' without adding syntax, format, or sourcing details beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Read a research job status' by job_id. It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like research_start, research_cancel, and research_results, which are for other phases of a research job.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention polling after research_start, nor does it distinguish from research_results or research_events. The timeout detail is behavioral, not usage guidance.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools