job_statusCheck the status of a background build, app run, or emulator start, optionally wait for completion, and omit the ID to list all active jobs.
Check a background job (build, run_app, emulator_start). Optionally wait for it to finish. Omit id to list all jobs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| waitSec | No | Wait up to this long for the job to finish | |
| logChars | No | How much of the log tail to include |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful behavior about optional waiting and the list-all mode when id is omitted, but it does not explain blocking behavior, polling, or result details beyond what the annotation and schema provide.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the two key usage behaviors. There is no wasted wording.
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 read-only status/listing tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, job types, wait option, and list-all mode. Minor gaps remain around id format and wait semantics, but the definition is complete enough to call correctly.
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 67%, with waitSec and logChars documented in the schema. The description adds valuable meaning for the undocumented id parameter by stating that omitting it lists all jobs, but it says nothing about logChars and adds little beyond the schema for waitSec.
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 and resource: checking a background job, with examples of job types (build, run_app, emulator_start). It also clearly distinguishes two modes: checking a specific job by id versus omitting id to list all jobs.
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?
It gives clear operational guidance: wait optionally and omit id to list all jobs. It does not explicitly name the alternative job_cancel or say when not to use this tool, but the usage context is clear enough for an agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.