Read a submitted job and each independently returned step result. A cancelled step may already have submitted a write; reconcile it.
Read a submitted job and each independently returned step result. A cancelled step may already have submitted a write; reconcile it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Returned job or stream ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), but the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: results are returned per step independently, and a cancelled step may have already performed a write that the caller must reconcile. That is real context beyond structured fields, though it doesn't mention consistency timing or whether partial jobs return partial results.
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?
Two sentences, no waste: the read operation is front-loaded and the reconciliation caveat follows immediately. Every clause earns its place.
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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what comes back (per-step results) and a key risk caveat. It lacks detail on result states or ordering, but nothing essential to calling it correctly is missing.
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?
There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Returned job or stream ID'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about the id, which is acceptable given the coverage baseline.
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 verb (read) and resource (a submitted job) plus its return composition (each step result), which clearly separates it from job_list and job_cancel. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the operation is unambiguous.
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?
Usage is implied by 'submitted job' – fetch results after job_submit – but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance or reference to job_list/stream_poll as alternatives. The cancelled-step note is a situational caveat rather than general usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.