Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
bca-mcp

bca-mcp

by blockchainacademics
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

get_agent_job

Poll the status of an asynchronous agent job. Provide the job ID to receive status updates: queued, running, completed, or failed, along with any output or error.

Instructions

Poll the status of an async agent job. Returns {status: queued|running|completed|failed, output?, error?}.

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_id": "<job_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_agent_job"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
job_idYesJob ID returned from any generate_* tool.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.1

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the return shape but does not explicitly confirm it is read-only, mention rate limits, or explain behavior on repeated calls. The action 'Poll' implies no side effects, but transparency is moderate.

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?

The description is extremely concise, consisting of one sentence plus a return type specification. No unnecessary words or fluff.

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 simplicity of a polling tool, the description is almost complete. It specifies the return shape, which is critical given no output schema. It lacks mention of potential blocking or timeout behavior, but the tool is straightforward.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The schema covers 100% of parameters with a clear description for job_id. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Poll' and the resource 'async agent job', making the tool's purpose immediately obvious. It is distinct from sibling tools that retrieve data or perform other operations.

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 it should be used after calling generate_* tools (as job_id comes from them), but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or when not to use it. No alternatives are mentioned.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools