Check live progress of a simulation job using its job ID, including percentage, current time, steps, speed, and remaining time. Falls back to archived progress data if the original file was deleted.
读某个作业的实时进度：百分比、当前模拟时刻、步数、计算速度、剩余时间。
数据来自引擎写的 <setup名>._spi_（例如 PROGRE 1000 表示完成）。
若原文件已被 MzLaunch 删除，则读本服务归档的副本。
Args: job_id: mz_run 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that data is sourced from an engine-written `<setup名>._spi_` file, with the example `PROGRE 1000` meaning completion, and that it reads an archived copy if MzLaunch deleted the original. This explains the tool's internal fallback behavior. It could add failure handling or latency notes, but for a read-only progress tool the disclosure is above average.
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 compact: a one-line purpose, a concise data-source note, a fallback sentence, and the Args line. Every sentence serves a purpose and there is no filler. The most important information is front-loaded in the first line, and the parameter note is clearly separated.
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 one-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers purpose, data source, fallback behavior, and parameter origin. It does not specify the exact response structure or error scenarios, and the absence of an output schema could merit more detail on the return format, but the listed metrics partially compensate. Overall it is nearly complete for the task of retrieving progress.
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%, but the description explicitly documents job_id as "mz_run 返回的作业 id" (the job id returned by mz_run). This adds meaningful provenance beyond the bare schema property, telling the agent exactly where the value comes from. It doesn't give format examples, but for a single simple string parameter this is sufficient.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "读某个作业的实时进度" (read a job's real-time progress), then enumerates the exact metrics returned (percentage, current simulation time, steps, speed, remaining time). This is clearly distinct from sibling tools like mz_job_status or mz_job_log, making the purpose unambiguous without needing to reference siblings.
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 reads progress data written by the engine to a `_spi_` file, and falls back to an archived copy if the original was deleted by MzLaunch. It also states that job_id comes from mz_run, which tells the agent when this tool is relevant. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or explain when not to use it, so it misses the top bar for exclusion guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.