Skip to main content
Glama

Job status

get_job

Retrieve the status and new output of a background job since the last read, optionally waiting for completion to avoid polling.

Instructions

Status of a background job and the output accumulated since the last read.

Output is returned as a delta and cleared from the buffer.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
waitNoSeconds to wait for completion, to avoid polling in a loop; 0 — don't wait. Above the server's cap — waits as long as it allows.
job_idYesIdentifier from start.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
cwdYes
hostYes
errorNoreason when status=error; empty otherwise
statusNorunning
stderrYes
stdoutYes
commandYes
exit_codeNoreturn code; null — still running or killed
stderr_truncatedYes
stdout_truncatedYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, which is non-obvious for a 'get' tool; the description resolves that by explaining the output is returned as a delta and cleared from the buffer, i.e. the read is consuming. That is genuine behavioral context beyond the annotations, though it doesn't cover auth or repeated-call behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by the buffer-clearing caveat. Nothing is wasted and nothing important is buried.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

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 no prose, and the delta/clear behavior is disclosed. The one gap is guidance on the wait/polling pattern, which lives only in the schema rather than the description.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both `job_id` and `wait` are already documented in the schema (including the wait-cap nuance). The description adds no parameter detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb-plus-resource ('Status of a background job') and adds the crucial delta semantic. It implicitly distinguishes itself from list_jobs but never names that sibling, so it falls 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.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer you call this after start to check progress, but the description never says when to prefer it over list_jobs nor mentions the polling/`wait` pattern it exists to support. No exclusions or alternatives are given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.