Check the progress or status of a running job, optionally waiting up to a set number of seconds for completion, or omit the job ID to list all jobs.
Status/progress of a job (optionally wait up to wait_seconds), or all jobs when job_id is omitted.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | No | ||
| wait_seconds | No | ||
| include_items | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds useful behavior: optional blocking via wait_seconds and the fallback to listing all jobs when job_id is null. It says nothing about return shape or the include_items flag.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence that packs in the two operating modes and the wait behavior with zero filler.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of explaining returns, and it only says 'status/progress' without detail. Combined with the undocumented include_items flag, an agent has gaps before calling correctly.
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%, so the description must compensate. It explains job_id semantics (omitted means all jobs) and wait_seconds (optional wait), but include_items is left entirely undocumented in both schema and description.
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?
Specific verb+resource: reports status/progress of a job, and it also covers the distinct listing mode when job_id is omitted. It is distinguishable from cancel_job and start_batch, though it doesn't name those siblings explicitly.
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 implies the when: use it to check on a running job, and optionally block via wait_seconds. It doesn't state when not to use it or point to alternatives such as list_operations for browsing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.