Poll the status of a background bioinformatics job and fetch its result once complete, using the job ID returned by a slow tool; optionally wait for completion.
Status and (when finished) result of a background job.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | Job id returned by a slow tool. | |
| wait_seconds | No | Block up to this long for the job to finish. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully reveals the dual return behavior (status while running, result once finished), but says nothing about polling expectations, blocking semantics (wait_seconds is only explained in the schema), authentication, or what a failure/error state looks like.
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?
A single tight sentence with the primary purpose (status) front-loaded before the conditional result case. Nothing is wasted, though the extreme brevity leaves room that could have been spent on usage guidance.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and both parameters are documented in the schema. What is missing is the calling context: how this fits with the slow tools that produce job ids and with list_jobs/cancel_job as alternatives.
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 description coverage is 100%, so job_id and wait_seconds are already fully documented in the schema, including the blocking cap of 25 seconds. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, making the baseline 3 correct.
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?
States a specific resource (background job) and what it returns (status, and result once finished). The 'get' verb plus 'job' clearly separates it from list_jobs and cancel_job by naming convention alone, though the description itself never explicitly contrasts the siblings.
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 statement of when to call this versus list_jobs (to enumerate jobs) or cancel_job (to abort one). The only usage hint is carried by the schema ('Job id returned by a slow tool'), not by the description, so the agent must infer the polling workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.