zephyr-squad-server-mcp

get_job_progress

Check the progress of an asynchronous ZAPI job using its progress token and job type to know when it completes and view the result.

Instructions

Poll an asynchronous ZAPI job once by its progress token.

type identifies the job kind, e.g. bulk_execution_copy_move_job_progress (copy/move executions) or cycle_delete_job_progress. Returns the current progress payload (progress reaches 1.0 when complete; message holds the result).

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": {
      "token": "<token>",
      "type": "<type>"
    },
    "name": "get_job_progress"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`token`	Yes
`type`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 24, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the one-time poll nature and progress indicator (progress reaches 1.0 when complete, message holds result). However, it omits error handling, authentication needs, and rate limits, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three sentences, front-loaded with the main action, no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

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?

No output schema exists, but description covers key return aspects (progress value up to 1.0, message field). Missing full structure and error cases, but sufficient for a simple polling tool.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains 'type' with examples of job kinds, adding context beyond schema. The 'token' parameter is only named, lacking explanation of its origin or format, which is a minor gap.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool polls an asynchronous ZAPI job by its progress token, with specific verb 'poll' and resource 'job progress'. It distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on cycles, executions, or folders, making its unique purpose evident.

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 polling job progress but does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool versus alternatives. No guidance on prerequisites or scenarios where polling is inappropriate.

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