Check a DHI MIKE Zero simulation job by ID to see if the process is running, how long it has taken, locate its log file, identify error lines, and list newly produced result files.
查询作业状态：进程是否存活、耗时、日志文件、报错行、新增结果文件。
Args: job_id: mz_run / mz_run_batch / mz_toolbox 返回的作业 id。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It does so by explicitly listing the status dimensions returned: process liveness, elapsed time, log file, error line, and new result files. It does not cover return format or error handling, but for a read-oriented status query the behavioral disclosure is reasonably complete.
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?
The description is concise and well-structured: one sentence summarizes the query purpose and output facets, followed by an Args section defining the parameter. No filler or redundant information is present.
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 simple one-parameter status query with no annotations and no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it defines the parameter source and the kind of information returned. It could be more complete by describing the response format or expected error behavior, but the essential context for invoking it correctly is present.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the parameter's meaning. It does this well by explaining that job_id is the identifier returned by mz_run, mz_run_batch, or mz_toolbox, adding meaningful provenance beyond the schema's generic 'Job Id' string.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: query job status and enumerates what it reports (process liveness, duration, log file, error line, new result files). It identifies the job_id as coming from mz_run/mz_run_batch/mz_toolbox, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from closely related siblings like mz_progress, mz_jobs, or mz_job_log.
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 description gives clear context: it is used with a job id returned by mz_run, mz_run_batch, or mz_toolbox. This implies the tool is meant to be called after launching a job, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives such as mz_progress or mz_job_log.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.