shapeless

Watch a job

jobs_tail

Read-only

Watch a job's run: replay its events from a cursor, then follow live until the run ends or limits hit; resume with the returned cursor.

Instructions

Watch a job's run: replays its events from the cursor, then follows live until the run ends, 60 seconds pass, or 200 events. Returns {live, cursor, events} - resume with that cursor. {live: false} means no run stream to attach to; the job may still have finished work, so read jobs_get. Needs the read scope.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	The job id.
`cursor`	No	Resume from this cursor; omit to replay the run from its start.
`maxSeconds`	No	How long to watch, 15 by default, 60 at most.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.4Oct 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, but the description goes further by disclosing the replay-then-live flow, exact stop conditions (run end, 60 seconds, 200 events), the return shape, cursor-resume semantics, the meaning of live:false, and the required read scope.

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 tightly structured: core behavior first, then return/resume, then fallback, then prerequisite. Every sentence adds necessary information with no redundancy.

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?

For a live-streaming watcher with rich schema and an output schema already present, the description covers all an agent needs: trigger semantics, stop conditions, resume mechanics, failure fallback, and auth requirements. Nothing critical is missing.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description reinforces cursor behavior and the 60-second cap, but adds no new syntax, format, or constraints 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Watch a job's run', then immediately defines the scope as replaying events from a cursor and following live until termination. It distinguishes itself from jobs_get by explicitly stating when no live stream is available.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It provides clear context for use and names jobs_get as the fallback when {live: false}. However, it does not explicitly compare itself to other sibling tools like jobs_list or jobs_get for general live-run monitoring, leaving some alternative routing implicit.

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

Deploy Server