Retrieve the stages, outcomes, and evidence of a durable PCB engineering job by job_id to track progress and verify results.
Read actual engineering stages, outcomes and evidence from a durable job.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine content context by naming what is returned (stages, outcomes, evidence), but says nothing about auth needs, behavior for an unknown or non-durable job_id, or latency.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though at this size it could have afforded one more clause to cover parameter or usage context without becoming bloated.
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?
There is no output schema, and the description partially compensates by enumerating the returned content (stages, outcomes, evidence). However, for a job-retrieval tool with zero parameter documentation and no stated failure or not-found behavior, the definition is only minimally sufficient.
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 0% and the single parameter job_id has no description in either place. The phrase 'durable job' weakly implies job_id identifies a persisted job, but the description adds no format, source, or lookup meaning beyond the schema's bare string type.
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 ('Read') and resource (engineering stages, outcomes and evidence from a durable job), so the agent knows it retrieves details of a job. It stops short of naming the sibling it contrasts with, leaving the get-vs-list distinction implicit.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the obvious alternatives list_engineering_jobs, cancel_engineering_job, or submit_engineering_job. The 'durable job' phrasing hints at fetching a specific job's persisted results, but the agent must infer that this differs from the list tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.