Poll a CAD or render operation to check status and retrieve results; set wait_seconds to 20 to reduce polling, and do not resubmit if a client timeout occurs.
Poll an operation; use wait_seconds=20 to avoid frequent polling. A client timeout does not cancel CAD/render; do not resubmit.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result_view | No | ||
| operation_id | Yes | ||
| wait_seconds | No | ||
| include_images | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, but the description adds genuinely new behavior: a client timeout does not cancel the underlying CAD/render job and the operation must not be resubmitted. That is exactly the kind of non-obvious side-effect warning an agent needs. It does not say what a poll returns or how completion is signalled, which keeps it below 5.
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 short sentences, zero filler, with the polling guidance front-loaded and the anti-resubmit warning immediately after. Every clause carries actionable 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?
With no output schema and no annotations on return shape, the description never explains what a poll returns, how to detect completion, or what result_view changes. For an async-operation polling tool that is a meaningful gap, though the critical resubmit hazard is covered.
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, but it only explains wait_seconds (as a long-poll duration capped at 20). The result_view enum (summary vs full), include_images, and the format of operation_id are left entirely 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Poll an operation', which is unambiguous about what the tool does. It does not explicitly differentiate from close siblings such as pro_result or pro_visualize_status, so an agent must infer that those serve different retrieval roles.
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 concrete operational guidance: pass wait_seconds=20 to avoid frequent polling, and do not resubmit after a client timeout. It does not name an alternative tool (e.g. pro_result) or say when to stop polling, so the routing guidance is clear but incomplete.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.