Retrieve a task's status, runtime, and last engine event-stream lines to spot stalls or revivals.
The status of a task, how long it has been running, and the last lines of its engine's own event stream. Reconciles nothing, and records the stall or the revival its clock reads.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lines | No | ||
| task_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it falls short. The phrase 'records the stall or the revival its clock reads' hints at possible state mutation or side effects without clarifying them, which is ambiguous and potentially misleading for what appears to be a status read.
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 sentences, but the second is ornamental pseudo-technical prose ('records the stall or the revival its clock reads') that consumes space without adding actionable meaning. The useful content (status, uptime, log tail) is buried in an indirect sentence rather than front-loaded.
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 task-status tool with no output schema, no annotations, and two undocumented parameters, the description is inadequate. It neither documents the parameters nor clarifies the return shape, side effects, or relationship to sibling task tools.
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% for both parameters (task_id, lines), and the description adds nothing about them. It never explains that task_id identifies the task to check or what 'lines' controls (presumably the number of event-stream lines returned).
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 does convey the resource (a task) and what is returned: its status, running duration, and tail of its engine's event stream. However, the tool name 'check' is generic and the second sentence ('Reconciles nothing...') is cryptic prose that obscures rather than clarifies purpose. No differentiation from siblings like list_tasks, result, or wait.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, despite siblings (wait, result, list_tasks) that clearly overlap. The only hint is the vague 'Reconciles nothing,' which does not tell an agent when to pick this over a blocking wait or a result fetch.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.