Check the status of a backfill job to see whether it is queued, running, done, failed, or cancelled, along with the number of processed records.
Status of a backfill job: queued | running | done | failed | cancelled, plus processed count.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description is the only signal, but it usefully discloses the return domain (queued/done/failed/cancelled + processed count). It doesn't state read-only-ness explicitly nor error behavior for unknown jobs, but a status query strongly implies a non-mutating read.
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 concise sentence that states the purpose and enumerates the possible statuses. No filler.
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?
Description names the entity, the status vocabularyinternals, and that a processed count is included. It doesn't state error behavior or that job_id comes from request_backfill, but these are minor for a simple status lookup with an output schema.
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 0% and the description does not define job_id explicitly. The phrase 'backfill job' gives domain context, letting the agent infer job_id refers to a previously requested backfill, but it doesn't say where the ID comes from or that it's the result of request_backfill.
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 operation (retrieving status), identifies the resource (a backfill job), and enumerates the possible return states, making the purpose clear. It does not explicitly call out a sibling tool like request_backfill, so it stops short of 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?
No guidance on when to use this versus request_backfill or other siblings, no prerequisites (e.g., job_id from a prior request), and no polling/usage advice. Usage is only implied by the word 'status'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.