Get the finished output and audit details for a delegated task by supplying its job ID, confirming which model and provider executed it.
Return the completed result and model/provider audit metadata.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the tool returns a completed result and audit metadata, which is useful but does not disclose behavior for incomplete or failed jobs, error conditions, or whether it waits. This is acceptable but not rich.
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 clean, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It states the core action and result immediately, earning every word.
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?
While the tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), the description leaves important gaps: it does not explain where job_id comes from, what the result structure looks like, or what happens if the job is not yet complete. An agent may be able to infer some context from siblings like start_task, but the description alone is not fully adequate.
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 description coverage is 0% and the description does not mention job_id at all. The only parameter is left entirely to the schema, which provides just a string type and length constraints. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, offering no guidance on what job_id refers to or how to obtain 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 uses a specific verb 'Return' with a clear object: 'completed result and model/provider audit metadata.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_task_status (status vs. result) and start_task, so an agent can tell them apart without opening the schema.
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 phrase 'completed result' implies this tool should be used after a task has finished, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives like get_task_status. Usage is inferred rather than stated, so it meets the 'implied usage' bar but not higher.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.