Retrieve the current status and retry round for a media-processing job using its job code so you can check progress or diagnose retries.
Current status and retry round of a job, e.g. job_code="MJ-0001".
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_code | Yes | e.g. "MJ-0001" |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | ||
| status | Yes | ||
| job_code | Yes | ||
| source_id | Yes | ||
| created_at | Yes | ||
| updated_at | Yes | ||
| retry_round | Yes |
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 and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that the response includes the retry round, which is useful context beyond annotations, but says nothing about polling behavior, error states, or failure modes for an unknown job_code.
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?
One short front-loaded sentence naming the resource and the key returned field. The inline example is slightly redundant with the schema example but not harmful.
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 an output schema present and a single fully documented parameter, the description only needs to state what the tool retrieves, which it does. The main omission is how this relates to sibling tools for diagnosing job state.
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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter carries its own pattern and example, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description merely repeats the same example, adding no new meaning.
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 (job status) plus the fields returned (current status and retry round). It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like list_job_errors or retry_job, but the resource is unambiguous enough to select it.
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 indication of when to use this versus list_job_errors (which might also reveal job state) or retry_job. The job_code example implies polling a known job, but no when/when-not guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.