Poll a background stats job by job_id; completed jobs return counts and, for open_stats, a local dashboard URL.
Poll a background stats job. completed results contain counts and, for open_stats, a local dashboard URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context about what a completed job yields (counts, and a dashboard URL for open_stats), but says nothing about in-progress/failed states or polling cadence.
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 tight sentences with no filler, and the core action ('poll') is front-loaded before the return-value detail.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and the description's note on completed results is a helpful bonus. The only real gap is the missing lifecycle guidance (pending/failed states, polling) for a job-status tool.
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?
One required parameter (job_id) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only hints that the job is 'background stats job,' implying the id comes from prepare_stats, but gives no format or source detail beyond the schema's bare 'Job Id' title.
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 (poll) and resource (background stats job), which cleanly separates it from the sibling tools that prepare or return stats. It never names those siblings, so the differentiation is implied rather than explicit.
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?
Calling this a 'poll' implies it is used repeatedly after a job is kicked off (presumably by prepare_stats), but the description never states when to call it versus checking elsewhere, nor that it requires a job_id produced by another tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.