Read crawl job status and cumulative accounting. Returns status for a crawl job owned by the authenticated principal. This control call does not reserve or settle credits.
Read crawl job status and cumulative accounting. Returns status for a crawl job owned by the authenticated principal. This control call does not reserve or settle credits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | Owned crawl job ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.12Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it answers the three behavioral questions that matter for a status tool: it is a read ('Read'), it requires ownership ('owned by the authenticated principal'), and it has no billing side effect ('does not reserve or settle credits'). It stops short of describing failure behavior for unknown or foreign job_ids or what 'cumulative accounting' concretely contains.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the ownership and billing qualifiers. Minimal waste; only mild redundancy between 'status' in sentence one and 'Returns status' in sentence two.
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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, auth scoping, and billing neutrality, which is enough for an agent to invoke it correctly. The main residual gap is that the return shape ('status and cumulative accounting') is only gestured at.
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 100% for the single job_id parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no format, ownership, or lookup semantics beyond what the schema's 'Owned crawl job ID' already states.
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 and resource ('Read crawl job status and cumulative accounting') and scopes it to a job 'owned by the authenticated principal', which cleanly separates it from result-fetching siblings like web_crawl_results. It never names an alternative sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the routing on its own.
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?
Usage is implied (poll a job after starting a crawl) but the description gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative such as web_crawl_results or web_crawl_cancel. The 'does not reserve or settle credits' line hints that it is safe to call repeatedly, which is a mild usage signal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.