hermes_job_statusCheck the lifecycle status of an asynchronous Hermes job to track progress and determine if it has completed, without exposing the job's output.
Read lifecycle metadata for an asynchronous Hermes job without returning its output.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| jobId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description aligns with readOnlyHint annotation and adds that it does not return output. This goes beyond the annotation by clarifying the scope (lifecycle metadata only). No contradictions. Could mention idempotency or rate limits, but sufficient.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with key information. No redundant words. Highly concise and structurally clear.
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 simple parameter and no output schema, description is adequate but could be more complete. E.g., what lifecycle metadata includes (status, timestamps, etc.) is not described. Sibling tools suggest broader context could be helpful.
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?
The jobId parameter is not described in the description. Schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate, but it fails to explain what jobId is or its role. The format and pattern in schema are not explained.
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?
Description clearly states the tool reads lifecycle metadata for a Hermes job without returning output. Verb 'Read' and specific resource 'lifecycle metadata for an asynchronous Hermes job' are precise. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like hermes_result (likely returns output) by explicitly excluding output.
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?
Description says 'without returning its output', implying use when metadata is needed. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives (e.g., use hermes_result for output). Context is clear but lacks exclusions or comparisons to siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.