Retrieve progress, per-paper results, PDF paths, compile logs, and page previews for an existing arxiv-zh translation job without starting a new translation.
查询已有任务进度、逐篇结果、PDF 路径、编译日志和页面预览。不会发起翻译。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | ||
| work_dir | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations already establish a safe read-only profile, but the description adds useful context by enumerating the returned data types (progress, per-paper results, PDF paths, logs, previews) and explicitly clarifying that the tool does not initiate translation. It does not cover pagination, authentication, or failure modes, keeping it below a 5.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the queryable outputs and followed by the single behavioral exclusion. Every phrase earns its place with no redundancy.
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?
With no output schema, the description usefully lists what data can be retrieved, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, the complete absence of parameter guidance for two required inputs (work_dir and job_id) leaves a notable gap for an agent trying to construct a correct call.
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% and the description does not explain either required parameter. There is a vague implicit connection to '已有任务' (existing task) that hints at job_id, but work_dir is completely unaddressed, leaving an agent without guidance on parameter meaning or format.
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 (查询) and lists the exact resources returned: task progress, per-paper results, PDF paths, compilation logs, and page previews. It also distinguishes from translation-starting tools with '不会发起翻译', so an agent can tell what this tool does and does not do without opening the schema.
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?
It clearly states when to use this tool (query existing task information) and when not to use it (will not initiate translation), which implicitly routes the agent to translate_papers for starting work. It does not explicitly name alternatives like resume_translation or arxiv_zh_status, so it stops short of a full 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.