scrupp_get_jobCheck a running extraction job's status and retrieve its records once finished, using the job ID returned by the extraction tool.
Status of a job, and its records once it has finished. Use this for a job that was still running when the tool that started it returned.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | The job id returned by an extraction tool. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it indicates the tool returns job status, and records only after completion, implying a polling pattern.
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 tightly written sentences with zero waste. The core purpose and usage condition are front-loaded, making it easy to scan.
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?
Given no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned (status and records once finished) and when to call it. It could say more about status values or whether the call blocks, but it is complete enough for correct invocation.
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 100% and the single job_id parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 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?
The description states a specific resource and scope: a job's status and its records once finished. It clearly distinguishes this tool from the sibling extraction/search tools that start jobs, without needing to name them.
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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this for a job that was still running when the tool that started it returned.' This tells the agent the tool is for polling async jobs, though it does not mention when-not or alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.