Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Bambi A1 MCP

Bambi A1 MCP

by chandraaditya
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

get_job

Read-only

Retrieve a durable job record and its exact prepared file hash to verify print submissions and track job details.

Instructions

Inspect the durable job record and exact prepared file hash.

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_job"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
job_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.7

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is non-destructive. The description adds useful behavior by saying the result includes the durable job record and exact prepared file hash, but it does not cover error behavior for missing job IDs or whether the hash is always present. With annotations, this is adequate 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is a single compact sentence with no wasted wording, and the key resource is front-loaded. The terseness is close to under-specification rather than bloat.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description identifies the main returned artifacts but omits how the job record is structured, what the hash represents, and how this differs from verification siblings. It is minimally usable but not fully complete.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description needed to explain job_id but does not mention the parameter, its format, or where to obtain it. The name job_id is self-explanatory, but no semantic detail is added beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb ('Inspect') and concrete resource ('durable job record') plus a returned artifact ('exact prepared file hash'), so an agent understands it retrieves job details. It does not distinguish this from close siblings like verify_job or prepare_job, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as verify_job, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions. The read-only nature implied by 'inspect' is the only usage signal.

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