shapeless

Read a job

jobs_get

Read-only

Fetch full details for a single job by ID, including its transcript, running or idle status, outputs with queue state and media, and web URL.

Instructions

One job in full: transcript, running/idle status, outputs (posts with queue state, media) and its web url. Use jobs_brief when you only need enough to reply. Needs the read scope.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "jobs_get"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	The job id.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`job`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.4Oct 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and a non-open-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value on top: it discloses the returned fields and the read-scope auth requirement. It doesn't mention size/cost or truncation behavior for large transcripts, which keeps it short of 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

Three compact sentences, each carrying distinct information: payload, routing alternative, prerequisite. Front-loaded with the result shape and free of filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values yet still summarizes them, and it covers the read-only nature, the auth prerequisite, and the sibling routing. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema documents the single 'id' parameter, so the description's job here is marginal. It doesn't add format, source, or lookup guidance for the job id (e.g., where ids come from), so baseline 3 is correct.

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

Purpose5/5

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

Names a specific verb and resource ('One job in full') and enumerates the payload (transcript, running/idle status, outputs with queue state and media, web url), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling jobs_brief.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

States the alternative ('Use jobs_brief when you only need enough to reply') and the condition that selects it, plus a prerequisite ('Needs the read scope'). Nothing about when to pick this over jobs_brief is left to inference.

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

Deploy Server