Look up a Transcript Dock job by ID to check transcription status, processing stage, errors, and billing details.
Look up a TranscriptDock job's status, stage, error, and billing by ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | The job ID returned by transcribe or list_jobs. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is fully covered structurally. The description adds value by enumerating the response facets (status, stage, error, billing), but says nothing about behavior on an unknown/expired job ID or whether billing data requires extra permissions.
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 with no filler; every clause (subject, returned fields, lookup key) carries information.
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?
A read-only, single-parameter lookup with full schema coverage needs little more, and naming the returned fields compensates for the absence of an output schema. Only the not-found/error behavior is left unaddressed.
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 job_id parameter already documents its UUID format and that it comes from transcribe or list_jobs. The description's "by ID" adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?
Specific verb ("look up") plus resource ("TranscriptDock job") and the exact fields returned (status, stage, error, billing) scoped by ID. It is clearly distinct from list_jobs because it is ID-keyed rather than enumerating, but the description never names a sibling to reinforce that contrast.
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 phrase "by ID" hints that an ID is required, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of the obvious alternatives in the sibling set (wait_for_job for blocking on completion, list_jobs for discovery). An agent must infer the polling-vs-blocking choice on its own.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.