Poll the status of a batch screenshot job until it completes or fails. Completed jobs return presigned download URLs valid for 24 hours.
Get the status of a batch screenshot job. Poll this until status is 'completed' or 'failed' (wait 2-5 seconds between polls). Completed items include presigned download URLs valid for 24 hours.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | The batch job ID returned by batch_screenshots |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.5.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false-destructive and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description goes beyond them usefully by disclosing polling cadence, the terminal status values, and the 24-hour lifetime of presigned download URLs returned for completed items. It stops short of describing non-terminal status values or failure payloads, so it is strong but not exhaustive.
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?
Three short sentences, each carrying distinct information (purpose, polling behavior, output lifetime), with the highest-value content front-loaded. Nothing is padding.
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, the description carries the return-value burden and does partially address it by naming the returned presigned URLs and their validity window. It omits the full set of possible status values and any failure/error detail, which would round out the picture.
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 parameter is documented there, including its origin ('returned by batch_screenshots'). The description adds no parameter detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 for a fully-covered schema 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Get the status of a batch screenshot job'), which cleanly separates it from the sibling that creates jobs (batch_screenshots). An agent can identify the tool's role without opening the schema.
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?
Explicitly prescribes the usage pattern: poll until status is 'completed' or 'failed' with a 2-5 second interval. It also implicitly situates this tool after batch_screenshots via the job_id reference, leaving no ambiguity about when to call it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.