Check export job progress: see whether it is waiting for Media Encoder, which deliverable is encoding, or if it finished or failed, including output files and measured LUFS.
Progress of an export_deliverables job: waiting for the Media Encoder master, encoding (which deliverable), done or failed, with the finished files and their measured LUFS.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| jobId | Yes | ||
| waitSeconds | No | Wait up to this long first (default 0) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the job state progression and return contents (finished files and measured LUFS). However, it never explicitly states this is a read-only operation, whether it is safe to poll repeatedly, or how waitSeconds affects blocking behavior, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence that packs the job type, state model, and return contents without any wasted wording.
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 two-parameter status tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what states and results to expect. It is slightly incomplete on waitSeconds blocking behavior and jobId format, but the core information needed to call and interpret the tool is present.
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 50%: waitSeconds is documented in the schema, but jobId has no schema description. The description implies jobId refers to an export_deliverables job but adds no format, origin, or waitSeconds semantics beyond the schema, so it only minimally compensates for the gap.
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/resource ('Progress of an export_deliverables job') and enumerates the exact states it reports: waiting, encoding, done, failed. It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling export_deliverables by reporting on a job rather than starting one.
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 first phrase makes clear this is for checking progress of an export_deliverables job, which implies its use after that job is started. It does not name explicit exclusions or alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.