BlindOracle

get_job_result

Retrieve the result of a completed job using its ID and optional token for authenticated access.

Instructions

Retrieve completed job result @requirement: REQ-MCP-007 - Result retrieval @requirement: REQ-AUTH-002 - Job token validation Properties: Durability(+0.5), Self-Organization(+0.2)

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_result"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`job_id`	Yes
`job_token`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 12, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions 'retrieve' implying read-only, and includes requirement tags (REQ-MCP-007, REQ-AUTH-002) and cryptic properties (Durability, Self-Organization) that add no behavioral clarity. It does not disclose error handling, authorization specifics, or side effects.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is short but includes extraneous metadata tags (requirements, properties) that are not useful for an agent. The core sentence is front-loaded and clear, but the technical annotations reduce conciseness and may confuse.

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

Completeness2/5

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

An output schema exists but its content is not described. The description omits what the result contains (e.g., fields, format), error scenarios, or success conditions. For a result retrieval tool, this context is critical and missing.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the parameters job_id or job_token. The requirement tag hints at job token validation but does not explain its role. The description fails to clarify parameter purpose or constraints 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 clearly states the tool retrieves a completed job result, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like check_job_status (status vs result) and submit_* jobs (creation vs retrieval). However, it does not explicitly address what happens if the job is not completed or fails, slightly limiting clarity.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling check_job_status exists for status checks, but no mention that get_job_result should be called only after completion. No when-not-to-use or prerequisites are provided.

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