Retrieve the current state of a submitted Kaggle or Colab job by job ID, so agents can track progress and confirm whether a job is still running, finished, or failed.
Job state. Mock data are TEST FIXTURES, not a live account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It warns that mock data are test fixtures, which is valuable, but says nothing about read-only behavior, authentication, rate limits, or what state values may be returned.
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 very short and front-loads the caveat about mock data. However, the first sentence is too terse to function as a useful purpose statement, making the brevity under-specification rather than efficient conciseness.
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 explained. Still, for a job-status lookup with one required parameter and multiple similar siblings, the description is missing basic routing and parameter context needed for correct invocation.
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 compensate for the undocumented job_id parameter, but it does not explain expected format, source, or constraints. The single required parameter is only minimally inferable from its name.
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?
"Job state" only gestures at the resource and omits a specific verb such as retrieve or get. It is close to restating the tool name and does not distinguish this tool from gpu_get_job_status or other job-related 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?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as l2kc_list_jobs, l2kc_get_job_logs, or gpu_get_job_status. The mock-data caveat is useful but is not usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.