spillway-mcp

codex_job_result

Read-onlyIdempotent

Inspect or wait for a Codex job using its job ID, retrieving retained output and stop evidence; set a wait budget to get a job handle if the job is still running.

Instructions

Inspect or wait for a Codex job, including retained output and stop evidence.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "job_id": "<job_id>"
    },
    "name": "codex_job_result"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`job_id`	Yes
`wait_ms`	No	Wait budget; returns a job handle if still running.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.4.0Nov 3, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the result carries retained output and stop evidence, which is real value, but it never explains timeout behavior, what happens to the wait budget, or how 'stop evidence' differs from normal output.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though 'stop evidence' is unexplained jargon that a reader cannot resolve from this description alone.

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

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so only in vague terms ('retained output and stop evidence'). It leaves unclear what the tool returns when the job is still running and how it differs from codex_status, so it is adequate but incomplete for a polling tool.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is only 50%: wait_ms is documented in the schema (including the handle-on-still-running behavior), while job_id is undocumented. The description contributes nothing about either parameter beyond the word 'wait', so it fails to compensate for the undocumented job_id.

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?

The description gives a specific verb pair and resource ('Inspect or wait for a Codex job') and names what is retrievable ('retained output and stop evidence'). It does not, however, distinguish this from the closely named sibling codex_status, so an agent still has to guess which one to call.

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?

'Inspect or wait' implies two modes of use, and the schema's wait_ms signals that blocking is optional. But there is no explicit when-to-use versus codex_status or codex_followup, and no stated condition for choosing inspect over wait.

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

Deploy Server