Check a Serpent 2 background calculation's state—running, finished, failed, or lost—plus exit code, progress, and recent logs. Omit job ID to list recent jobs.
Check background job state (running/finished/failed/lost), exit code, progress and recent log output. Without job_id, list the most recent jobs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tail | No | ||
| job_id | No |
| 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?
No annotations are provided, but an output schema exists, so the enumeration of returned fields (state, exit code, progress, log output) is largely redundant with structured data. The description does not state read-only semantics, whether calls block or poll, or how an unknown/expired job_id is handled, leaving the main behavioral burden unmet.
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?
Two tight sentences with the core capability front-loaded and the mode-switching condition second; no filler, no restatement of the tool name.
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 2-parameter, zero-required, read-only-style tool with an output schema, the description covers modes, states, and what is returned. The only real omission is the meaning/default of 'tail' and any indication of error handling for invalid job IDs.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains job_id well (absent means list mode instead of detail mode), but 'tail' is never mentioned — its role as the log-line count is only weakly implied by 'recent log output,' leaving one of two parameters effectively undocumented.
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?
The description names a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('background job state') and enumerates the possible states (running/finished/failed/lost), which helps an agent distinguish it from siblings like job_kill or job_output. It also discloses the dual behavior (state lookup vs. listing when job_id is absent), though it never names the sibling tools it is not.
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?
It gives an explicit conditional: 'Without job_id, list the most recent jobs,' which tells the agent how to trigger the listing mode. It does not name alternatives (e.g., job_output for full logs, job_kill to terminate), so the agent must infer when to prefer those tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.