job_statusWaits up to the specified seconds for a background statistical job, then returns its result or progress so you can retrieve completed output or monitor status.
For a tool that answered STILL RUNNING: waits up to wait_seconds for the background job, then returns its result (the same result the tool would have returned) or its progress so far.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | ||
| wait_seconds | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description's job is to add behavior beyond that, and it does: the wait is bounded by wait_seconds, and the return is either the original tool's result or a progress snapshot. It doesn't cover failure states or confirmation of what happens exactly at the wait boundary, so not a 5.
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 compact sentence, front-loaded with the trigger condition rather than burying it. The parenthetical 'the same result the tool would have returned' is slightly redundant but earns its place by clarifying equivalence.
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 only two parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the remaining essentials: trigger, bounded wait, and dual return (result vs. progress). Explicit failure/timeout behavior would complete it, but nothing critical is missing 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. It explains wait_seconds as a wait bound ('waits up to wait_seconds'), which adds meaning over the schema's bare numeric bounds, but it says nothing about job_id's origin or format. Partial compensation merits the baseline 3.
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 states a concrete action: it 'waits up to wait_seconds for the background job, then returns its result ... or its progress so far.' That gives verb+resource+outcome. It doesn't differentiate itself from siblings like cancel_job or workflow_status, so it isn't a 5.
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 opening clause 'For a tool that answered STILL RUNNING' is an explicit trigger condition — a strong when-to-use signal. It lacks any when-not guidance (e.g., don't use after a job has already completed, use cancel_job to abort instead), which keeps it below 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.