Check the status of a CASINO job by job ID, returning whether it is running, finished, failed, or stopped, along with its PID, runtime, and exit code.
State of one job: running / finished / failed / stopped, pid, runtime in seconds, exit code.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose the status vocabulary and returned metrics, and 'state of one job' strongly implies a read-only query. However, it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, how unknown or expired job IDs are handled, or whether it is safe to poll repeatedly.
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?
The description is a single sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core scoping ('State of one job') and then lists the concrete status and metric fields, so every word adds value.
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 low-complexity one-parameter status query, the description is largely complete: it defines the job scope and the returned state fields, and the output schema covers the return contract. The main omissions are explicit usage routing and side-effect disclosure, but the tool is simple enough that the given information allows 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%, so the description must add meaning to job_id. It adds minimal context by indicating the parameter refers to the specific job whose state is checked, but it does not mention job_id by name, explain how to obtain a valid value, or provide any format guidance beyond the schema's string type.
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 clearly identifies the tool as reporting the state of a single job and enumerates the key fields returned (status, pid, runtime, exit code). The phrase 'one job' helps separate it from casino_list_jobs, but it does not explicitly contrast with casino_results or other 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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer that this tool is for checking an individual job's status after invoking casino_run. There is no explicit guidance about when to use it instead of casino_results, casino_stop, or casino_list_jobs, and no mention of prerequisites such as having a valid job_id.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.