get_governed_jobRetrieve the current public state and result of a governed BailingHub job using its exact job ID.
Read the current public state and result of a BailingHub job owned by this client.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | Exact job_id returned by submit_governed_job. Never invent it. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive flags. The description adds meaningful context: 'public state' indicates visibility, 'owned by this client' hints at access control, and 'current' implies no waiting. No contradiction with annotations.
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, direct sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. No filler or redundant information.
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?
For a simple getter with strong annotations and a clear parameter schema, the description covers the essentials: what is read, ownership, and currency. Without an output schema, it does not specify the exact response structure, but this is not critical for this tool.
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?
The tool description itself does not mention parameters. However, the schema description for job_id is 100% covered and includes critical guidance ('Never invent it'), so the baseline of 3 applies since the schema carries the full burden.
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 clearly states the tool reads the current public state and result of a specific job, using a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('BailingHub job'). It naturally distinguishes from siblings by contrasting read (get) with create (submit) and likely wait/block operations.
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?
Usage context is implied by the verb 'read' and 'current' (non-blocking), but there is no explicit guidance like 'Use this to poll status' or 'Do not use to create jobs'. Sibling names help, but the description itself doesn't clarify when to choose this over wait_for_governed_job.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.