pdf-rescue-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

查看任务状态

get_job_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Monitor a PDF book extraction job: get runtime, remaining time, book name, page progress, speed, CPU/memory usage, and quality report location.

Instructions

读取书籍提取任务的运行时间、剩余时间、书籍名、总处理页数、处理进度、处理速度、CPU/内存资源占用率，以及低置信页、失败页和质量报告位置。监测以独立工作进程的心跳为准，不会把 Windows 包装器 PID 当作 OCR 进程。

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "job_dir": "<job_dir>"
    },
    "name": "get_job_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`job_dir`	Yes
`stalled_after_seconds`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: monitoring relies on the worker process heartbeat and does not mistake the Windows wrapper PID for the OCR process. This is beyond what annotations provide.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence but dense with specific fields. It is not overly long and every phrase adds value, though it is somewhat of a list and could be structured more clearly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has an output schema, the description need not explain return values. It covers the key returned fields and adds a subtle liveness detail. It lacks parameter explanation, but that is partially compensated by the schema and output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not mention either parameter (job_dir, stalled_after_seconds). It gives no guidance on required values, types, or semantics, leaving the agent without additional meaning beyond the raw schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it reads job status for book extraction tasks, listing specific metrics. It is a specific verb+resource, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_batch_status.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for monitoring an active book extraction job, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The heartbeat-based monitoring note gives context but no direct comparison.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.