Check the status of a batch job, such as a batch user or group assignment. Monitor progress and determine completion.
Check the status of a batch job (e.g. a batch user/group assignment).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| jobId | Yes | The batch job id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds no behavioral details beyond that, such as polling behavior, auth requirements, or what the status values mean.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence that communicates purpose and scope with zero waste. It is appropriately sized for a simple status-check tool.
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?
Given the low complexity, full schema coverage, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is complete enough for correct invocation. It does not explain return values, but no output schema exists and the task is straightforward.
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 100% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 verb (Check) and resource (batch job status), with an example clarifying the scope (batch user/group assignment). Does not explicitly differentiate from siblings, though none are directly competitive.
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?
The context implies when to use it (when you have a batch job and need its status), but there are no explicit alternatives, exclusions, or when-not conditions. Usage 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.