Inspect the caller's queued work and recorded model usage to check job progress and track token consumption.
Inspect the caller's queued work and recorded model usage.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety and idempotency profile is fully covered. The description adds the nature of the returned content (queued work plus model usage), which is useful context, but it does not disclose what happens to scope when job_id is omitted or what the response looks like.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is arguably under-specified rather than verbose, but the sentence itself earns its place.
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 one-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose but leaves the return shape, the job_id semantics, and the filtering behavior unexplained. It is minimally adequate, not complete.
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?
The single parameter job_id is documented neither in the schema (0% coverage) nor in the description, which never mentions it. The agent cannot tell whether it is a required filter, what an omitted value returns, or what format the ID takes.
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 ('Inspect') and two concrete resources ('the caller's queued work' and 'recorded model usage'), which is enough for an agent to know this is a read-only status/job-lookup tool. It is easy to distinguish from siblings (graph_*, memory_*, repository_*), though the description does not explicitly contrast itself with any of them.
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?
No when-to-use guidance is given. It does not say when a caller should reach for workflow_status versus session_timeline or graph_history_stats, nor when to pass job_id versus calling with no arguments. The agent must infer all of this.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.