Retrieve the result of a long-running job by job ID to get completed iOS reverse-engineering output.
Retrieve a long-running job result.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | ||
| data | No | ||
| error | No | ||
| elapsed_ms | Yes | ||
| request_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. However, the critical behavioral question for a long-running job tool — whether the call blocks until completion, errors while pending, or returns partial state, and how long results are retained — is entirely unaddressed, and the annotations cannot cover that.
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?
One short, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It is arguably under-specified rather than bloated, but structurally it is efficient.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, but the job lifecycle semantics (polling, blocking, expiration, error states) are missing for a tool whose whole purpose is asynchronous job retrieval. Given the presence of job_cancel as a sibling, the absence of any lifecycle framing leaves the definition incomplete.
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?
With a single self-explanatory parameter (job_id) whose format is enforced by a regex pattern and length bounds, the schema carries most of the load. The description adds nothing about the origin of the ID or whether it must come from a prior submission call, so it neither compensates for the 0% schema description coverage nor harms it.
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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Retrieve a ... job result"), but it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling job_cancel, nor does it reconcile its name (job_status implies checking progress) with the stated behavior of returning a result. An agent can guess the intent but must open the schema to confirm whether this polls status or fetches final output.
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 guidance on when to call this versus job_cancel, or whether it should be polled repeatedly until completion. Nothing states where a valid job_id originates or what happens if the job is still running.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.