check_job_statusPoll an export or async job by numeric job ID; set wait:true to block until it reaches a terminal state.
Poll an export / async job by jobId (numeric). Supports wait:true to block until terminal.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| wait | No | Block until terminal state. | |
| job_id | Yes | Job id to poll (numeric). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that wait:true blocks until a terminal state, but it does not explain terminal states, timeout behavior, or what the poll returns; the wait behavior is also already in the schema.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the core action, identifier requirement, and wait option efficiently.
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 read-only polling tool this is minimally adequate, but because there is no output schema, the description should say more about what status values or terminal states are returned. It also omits timeout or failure behavior for wait:true.
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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description repeats that job_id is numeric and wait blocks until terminal, but adds no additional format or semantic detail beyond the schema.
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 states a specific verb, "Poll," and resource, "export / async job," with the required identifier. It is clear, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like check_task_status or get_active_task.
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?
Polling an export/async job implies the use case, and wait:true is described. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this instead of check_task_status or get_active_task, nor any exclusions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.