Retrieve completed scraper run records by snapshot ID. Check job status: returns 'running' if results are not ready yet, or the finished data once available.
Records of a finished run. Returns status "running" if not ready yet.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| snapshot_id | Yes | snapshot_id from run_scraper |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing that a not-ready call returns status "running" rather than erroring, but it says nothing about result size, pagination, or what a completed record set contains.
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?
Two short sentences with no filler, and the ready/not-ready behavior is front-loaded after the purpose statement. It is efficient, though the terseness edges toward under-specification rather than crisp completeness.
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?
With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it only covers the 'running' edge case without describing the shape of a finished result. For a low-complexity single-parameter tool this is minimally adequate but leaves gaps.
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 coverage is 100% and the schema already explains snapshot_id comes from run_scraper. The description adds no syntax, format, or validity information beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies for a single well-documented parameter.
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 conveys the resource ('Records of a finished run') but never states a verb like 'retrieve/fetch results' and never ties itself to the snapshot_id input. It also doesn't distinguish itself from siblings like get_scraper_progress or get_scraper_details, which an agent must choose between.
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?
No when-to-use guidance is given. Nothing tells the agent to call this after run_scraper, nor how it relates to get_scraper_progress for polling. The 'running' hint implies polling behavior but never states it as usage advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.