Check a Cortex job's status and metadata, returning IDs, target, actor, criteria, timestamps, and error details.
Get a Cortex job's metadata and status (no artifacts). Returns the same safe-field projection as cortex_run_job: ids, status, target, actor, criteria, timestamps, error. Use cortex_get_result to fetch the structured result body.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | Cortex job ID, e.g. "ctxjob_123". |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds concrete detail about the returned fields (ids, status, target, actor, criteria, timestamps, error) and emphasizes 'no artifacts', which goes beyond the annotation alone.
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 sentences, zero waste. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the alternative is given in the second sentence. Perfectly structured.
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-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety, the description explains the return projection and routes to the result-fetch sibling. It's complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly; could mention error handling but that's not critical here.
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 job_id, so the schema fully explains the parameter. The description adds no extra semantics beyond that, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 (Get) and resource (Cortex job's metadata and status), and explicitly clarifies it does not return artifacts. It also distinguishes itself from cortex_get_result, making its purpose unambiguous among siblings.
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?
Explicitly points to cortex_get_result as the alternative for fetching the structured result body, which is the main likely confusion. It doesn't discuss when to use this over cortex_list_jobs or other read tools, but the primary alternative is covered.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.